Minutes for the W3C XML Protocol Working Group Wednesday, 10 January, 2001, noon PST, duration 90 minutes.
Active Data Exchange Richard Martin principal Akamai Technologies Mark Nottingham principal AT&T Mark Jones principal AT&T Michah Lerner alternate Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus alternate Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau principal Cisco Krishna Sankar principal Compaq Yin-Leng Husband principal Compaq Kevin Perkins alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle principal DataChannel Yan Xu principal DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin principal Engenia Software Eric Jenkins alternate Ericsson Nilo Mitra principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa principal Hewlett Packard David Ezell principal Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams alternate IBM David Fallside chair IBM Fransisco Cubera alternate Informix Software Charles Campbell principal Informix Software Soumitro Tagore alternate Intel Randy Hall principal Jamcracker David Orchard principal Library of Congress Rich Greenfield alternate Lotus Development Noah Mendelsohn principal Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen principal Microsoft Corporation Paul Cotton alternate Mitre Marwan Sabbouh principal Mitre Paul Denning alternate Netscape Vidur Apparao principal Netscape Ray Whitmer alternate Novell Scott Isaacson principal OMG Henry Lowe principal Oracle Jim Trezzo alternate Philips Research Yasser alSafadi principal Philips Research Amr Yassin alternate Progress Software Andrew Eisenberg alternate Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman principal SAP AG Volker Wiechers principal SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing alternate Software AG Michael Champion principal Sun Microsystems Mark Baker alternate Unisys Lynne Thompson principal Unisys Nick Smilonich alternate Vitria Technology Inc. Waqar Sadiq principal W3C Yves Lafon team contact W3C Hugo Haas alt team contact Xerox Bill Anderson principal (SCRIBE) XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell principal
Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok alternate Bowstreet James Tauber principal Canon Herve Ruellan alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg alternate DataChannel Brian Eisenberg alternate DevelopMentor Don Box alternate Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita alternate IBM John Ibbotson principal Library of Congress Ray Denenberg principal XMLSolutions John Evdemon alternate Oracle David Clay principal Progress Software David Cleary principal Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson alternate Software AG Dietmar Gaertner alternate Sun Microsystems Ed Mooney principal Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo alternate Xerox Tom Breuel alternate
Allaire Glen Daniels principal Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan principal Data Research Associates Mark Needleman principal Epicentric Bjoern Heckel principal IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley principal IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer alternate Tibco Frank DeRose principal WebMethods Randy Waldrop principal
Allaire Simeon Simeonov alternate Commerce One David Burdett principal Commerce One Murray Maloney alternate Epicentric Dean Moses alternate Group 8760 Dick Brooks ebXML contact NCR Vilhelm Rosenqvist principal NCR Lew Shannon alternate
1. Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (4 mins)
2. Agenda review, call for AOB (4 mins)
- no new items
3. Approval of minutes from Jan 3 telcon [1].
- minutes stand as submitted
Approval of minutes from Dec f2f modulo corrections [9] (4 mins)
- f2f minutes stand as corrected
4. Review action items, see [2] (4 mins)
- put DR305/309 on agenda for next week
- reqt's have been posted to xml-dev and other lists
5. Requirements Document (4 mins)
-- Publication of interim versions of Requirements Document. Publication of
interim versions will mirror the DSig WG's approach, see [3] and [4].
- with little discussion the approach is adopted.
6. R300 states "architecture and extensibility framework must be explicitly
defined" and StuartW has proposed [10] an abstract model for this purpose.
The chair intends to quickly gauge the WG's sense for [10] with a view to
starting more detailed discussion in future telcons. (5 minutes)
Discussion summary: good starting point, issues with glossary, and
scope regarding context for XP. Suggestion to send this off to a
subgroup for work.
David Fallside will coordinate this work offline.
7. Use cases (30 minutes)
- Have been posted since 21 Dec 2000, task today is to choose to
accept or send back for rework.
-- DS1, see [5] and subsequent
Discussion around this scenario specifically centered on role of
intermediaries and on whether this is an RPC call. (Noah: we need
to distinguish arbitrary XML msgs from RPC, methods/args model.)
Meta-discussion on scenarios more generally focused on how to
relate use scenarios to req'ts.:
- Req'ts say what XP will do, use cases are not necessarily binding
on the XP spec.
- Keep use cases describing what users need end-to-end.
- Who will do the editing for the req'ts document for this section?
Disposition: DS1 as written is accepted as use scenario #1
-- DS2, see [6] and subsequent
Discussion: at f2f there was some discussion of what "set of
receivers" mean? Is this multicast? or a set of point-to-point mgs?
One key point in this discussion was expressed by Noah:
map our abstractions (e.g., request/response) to underlying
transports; e.g., we're req'd to do one-way and request/response
over HTTP. We should not agree that all bindings are req'd to do
all things, but we need to clarify what we have to do with the
HTTP binding we're committed to deliver.
There was some concensus to accept draft scenarios now and note
what parts of scenarios are supported by our work later. This will
help us clarify in- and out-of-scope req'ts.
Disposition: DS2 accepted as written.
** Discussion on the following draft scenarios was tabled to move to
Agenda item 8.
-- DS3, see [7] and subsequent
-- DS4, see [8] and subsequent
-- DS5, see [12] and subsequent
-- DS6, see [13] and subsequent
8. Specification Schedule (30 minutes)
The Charter shows a first XP Specification WD in January 2001 although this
seems unlikely given our current status. The WG's next f2f meeting is at
the end of February, and it is a good date around which to plan our
schedule.
Our next steps are.
(a) finish a 'complete' version of the Reqs Doc. By 'complete' I mean
having enough content that we can start work on XP specification;
'complete' does *not* imply there are no future revisions of the Reqs Doc.
We need to decide the criteria for 'compete', I suggest it involves at a
minimum: (i) a set of use-cases, and (ii) a review of the Reqs as a whole
(we have tended to work on reqs individually).
(b) figure out a process for creating an XP Spec. We are chartered to
"evaluate the technical solutions proposed in the SOAP 1.1 specification
against these requirements" [11]. In other words, we will need to apply our
Reqs Doc to the SOAP 1.1 spec (along the lines of what we did at the
Redmond f2f). There may be other inputs as well, for example, WG members'
evaluations of the SOAP 1.1 spec and/or an abstract model like [10]. For
scheduling purposes, we need to describe the XP Spec creation process in
more detail.
Given these next steps, there are a couple of likely scheduling
alternatives.
(a) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and
publish it as a WD AND figure out the process for creating an XP Spec. The
February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to working the XP Spec
process to generate material for a first draft of the Spec.
(b) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and
publish it as a WD. The February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to
figuring out the process for creating the XP Spec, and possibly generating
a limited amount of material for it. The chair's opinion is that this
option will lead us to spend too much time working on the Reqs Doc with the
result that we are loathe to change much or any of it. The chair prefers a
model of publish early and often.
(c) Before the f2f: finish a complete version of the Reqs Doc and
publish it as a WD AND figure out the process for creating an XP Spec AND
create a first draft of the spec (possibly including something like [10]).
The February f2f meeting would be largely devoted to working the XP Spec
process to generate more material for the Spec.
Note that there are about 6 weeks before the f2f. If we want to create any
douments before the f2f, they probably needs to be available one week
before the f2f.
Discussion of this agenda item will be limited to 30 minutes. The chair is
interested in the WG members' opinions about how and when to move forward
with an XP Specification.
David F (summarizing discussion):
(a) have use cases first in hand before looking at SOAP spec
(b) take SOAP 1.1 as opening working draft and post issues against
our req'ts doc
(subsequent discussion): If we're to move quickly with XP then we
need to work use cases in parallel and need more help from WG
members. Good support for casting SOAP 1.1 as working draft for XP,
but some concern about committing to SOAP prematurely, before we
have a good understanding of req'ts and use cases.
David F will take discussion under advisement; send email in a
couple of days. Do need to decide if SOAP 1.1 is good enough.
9. Any Other Business (5 mins)
None
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/01/03-pminutes.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmldsig-core/ [4] http://www.w3.org/Signature/Drafts/WD-xmldsig-core-latest/ [5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0220.html [6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0217.html [7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0218.html [8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0219.html [9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Jan/0024.html [10] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Jan/0004.html [11] http://www.w3.org/2000/09/XML-Protocol-Charter#scope [12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0221.html [13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2000Dec/0222.html