IRC log of soap-jms on 2011-01-11

Timestamps are in UTC.

17:02:30 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
17:02:30 [RRSAgent]
logging to
17:02:32 [trackbot]
RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:32 [Zakim]
Zakim has joined #soap-jms
17:02:34 [trackbot]
Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:02:35 [trackbot]
Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:02:35 [trackbot]
Date: 11 January 2011
17:02:35 [Zakim]
ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:45 [padams]
Zakim, who is here?
17:02:45 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, padams
17:02:46 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, eric, mphillip, padams, trackbot, Yves
17:03:21 [eric]
Zakim, this is SJMS
17:03:21 [Zakim]
ok, eric; that matches WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM
17:03:30 [eric]
Zakim, who is here?
17:03:30 [Zakim]
On the phone I see padams, +1.209.474.aaaa
17:03:31 [Zakim]
On IRC I see RRSAgent, eric, mphillip, padams, trackbot, Yves
17:03:32 [Zakim]
17:03:44 [eric]
Zakim, aaaa is eric
17:03:44 [Zakim]
+eric; got it
17:04:50 [alewis]
alewis has joined #soap-jms
17:05:03 [padams]
Zakim, who is here?
17:05:03 [Zakim]
On the phone I see padams, eric, mark
17:05:04 [Zakim]
On IRC I see alewis, Zakim, RRSAgent, eric, mphillip, padams, trackbot, Yves
17:05:40 [Zakim]
17:06:05 [mphillip]
Topic: Appointment of the scribe
17:06:09 [mphillip]
scribe: Mark
17:06:12 [mphillip]
Chair: Eric
17:06:17 [mphillip]
Regrets: Derek
17:06:26 [mphillip]
Topic: Administrative items
17:07:07 [mphillip]
Progress software is no longer a W3C member so Peter will no longer be joining us on this call
17:08:07 [mphillip]
Amy: Peter might be able to continue as an "Invited Expert"
17:08:56 [mphillip]
Eric: That might be a useful thing to do - will confer with Yves and ask Peter
17:10:38 [mphillip]
Eric: May be meeting the W3C CEO in the near future and will raise that. Will also ask Oracle if they are interested in (re)joining.
17:11:04 [mphillip]
Eric: In light of low attendance we may not be able to cover the full agenda
17:11:11 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:12:13 [mphillip]
No objections to approving minutes (and no objections to approving in Derek's absence)
17:12:22 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review the agenda
17:12:36 [mphillip]
No changes
17:12:43 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Review action items
17:12:51 [mphillip]
Eric: No progress
17:13:02 [mphillip]
Mark: - complete
17:13:07 [mphillip]
close actione-237
17:13:11 [mphillip]
close action-237
17:13:11 [trackbot]
ACTION-237 Apply the resolution for ISSUE-65 closed
17:14:10 [mphillip]
Eric: - Derek has made progress by raising ISSUE-70
17:14:18 [mphillip]
close action-239
17:14:18 [trackbot]
ACTION-239 Raise new issue to clarify requirements around which message types must be supported. closed
17:14:31 [mphillip]
17:14:42 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)
17:14:51 [mphillip]
Mark: No progress
17:14:55 [mphillip]
Phil: No progress
17:16:06 [mphillip]
Phil: Still working on trying to get someone involved
17:16:36 [mphillip]
TOPIC: Specification Issues:
17:16:51 [mphillip]
17:17:09 [mphillip]
17:24:12 [mphillip]
Phil: Concerned that an existing implementation which does not support this property will no longer be spec. compliant because it will not look for this property, and so it will not be able to throw the fault
17:25:17 [mphillip]
Eric: True, although we asserted that this is not testable, so there will be nothing in the test suite, and existing implementations will not fail the compliance tests
17:30:11 [mphillip]
No objection to approving the application
17:30:36 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: The Application of resolution for ISSUE-65 is approved
17:31:09 [mphillip]
17:31:09 [trackbot]
ISSUE-70 The spec should clearly state that vendors must support both BytesMessage and TextMessage. notes added
17:32:56 [mphillip]
Eric: We don't clearly state that the receiving node must support both Bytes and TextMessage
17:33:36 [mphillip]
Eric: (for req/resp you must be able to send back a response in the same format as the request
17:35:58 [mphillip]
No objections to opening the issue
17:36:06 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: ISSUE-70 is opened
17:37:57 [mphillip]
Eric: The proposed changed doesn't need to be normative - could just refer to section
17:38:14 [mphillip]
Mark: Do we need new tests?
17:39:12 [mphillip]
17:40:15 [mphillip]
Mark: OK we have tests that cover this (test0002 and test0004)
17:42:40 [mphillip]
Mark: After the first sentence here:
17:44:13 [mphillip]
Mark: I approve the proposal as written - to be inserted fter the first sentence in 2.4
17:44:43 [mphillip]
Eric: Suggests we resolve as proposed
17:44:54 [padams]
17:45:11 [mphillip]
RESOLUTION: The proposal for ISSUE-70 is approved
17:45:21 [mphillip]
action Eric to apply the resolution for ISSUE-70
17:45:21 [trackbot]
Created ACTION-240 - Apply the resolution for ISSUE-70 [on Eric Johnson - due 2011-01-18].
17:45:41 [mphillip]
TOPIC: URI scheme
17:46:36 [mphillip]
Eric: Has feedback from IETF reviewers - will prepare a new draft this week to submit by Friday. Please provide feedback before then.
17:51:09 [mphillip]
17:51:20 [mphillip]
17:52:03 [Zakim]
17:52:04 [Zakim]
17:52:04 [Zakim]
17:52:08 [mphillip]
rrsagent, make minutes
17:52:08 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate mphillip
17:52:08 [padams]
padams has left #soap-jms
17:52:08 [Zakim]
17:52:10 [Zakim]
WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
17:52:11 [Zakim]
Attendees were padams, +1.209.474.aaaa, mark, eric, alewis
17:52:26 [eric]
rrsagent, make logs public
19:26:47 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #soap-jms