Minutes for the W3C XML Protocol Working Group Wednesday, 10 January, 2001, noon PST, duration 90 minutes.

Roll call, scribes for minutes/action items (5 mins)

Present 49/36

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

Automatically excused

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

Absent without explanation

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

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
    (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)
[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