PRESENT 38/30 Akamai Technologies Mark Nottingham principal Allaire Glen Daniels principal AT&T Michah Lerner alternate Canon Jean-Jacques Moreau principal Commerce One David Burdett principal Compaq Yin-Leng Husband principal DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Mario Jeckle principal DevelopMentor Martin Gudgin principal Engenia Software Eric Jenkins alternate Group 8760 Dick Brooks ebXML contact Hewlett Packard David Ezell principal Hewlett Packard Stuart Williams alternate IBM John Ibbotson principal IBM David Fallside chair Intel Randy Hall principal Interwoven Mark Hale principal Library of Congress Ray Denenberg principal Lotus Development Noah Mendelsohn principal Matsushita Electric Ryuji Inoue principal Microsoft Corporation Paul Cotton alternate Microsoft Corporation Henrik Nielsen principal Mitre Marwan Sabbouh principal Netscape Vidur Apparao principal Novell Scott Isaacson principal OMG Henry Lowe principal Oracle Jim Trezzo alternate Oracle David Clay principal Rogue Wave Patrick Thompson alternate SAP AG Gerd Hoelzing alternate SAP AG Volker Wiechers principal Software AG Michael Champion principal Sun Microsystems Marc Hadley principal Sun Microsystems Mark Baker alternate Unisys Lynne Thompson principal Unisys Nick Smilonich alternate W3C Yves Lafon team contact W3C Hugo Haas alt team contact XMLSolutions Kevin Mitchell principal AUTOMATICALLY EXCUSED Interwoven Ron Daniel alternate Allaire Simeon Simeonov alternate AT&T Mark Jones principal Canon Herve Ruellan alternate Commerce One Murray Maloney alternate DevelopMentor Don Box alternate Engenia Software Jeffrey Kay principal IBM Fransisco Cubera alternate Library of Congress Rich Greenfield alternate Mitre Paul Denning alternate Netscape Ray Whitmer alternate Rogue Wave Murali Janakiraman principal Software AG Dietmar Gaertner alternate XMLSolutions John Evdemon alternate REGRETS Bowstreet Alex Ceponkus (carpT) alternate Calico Commerce Rekha Nagarajan principal Cisco Krishna Sankar principal Compaq Kevin Perkins alternate DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech Andreas Riegg alternate Data Research Associates Mark Needleman principal DataChannel Brian Eisenberg principal Ericsson Research Canada Nilo Mitra principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Kazunori Iwasa principal Fujitsu Software Corporation Masahiko Narita alternate Informix Software Soumitro Tagore alternate Philips Research Amr Yassin alternate Philips Research Yasser alSafadi principal Tibco Frank DeRose principal Vitria Technology Inc. Waqar Sadiq principal WebMethods Randy Waldrop principal Xerox Tom Breuel primary ABSENT WITHOUT EXPLANATION Active Data Exchange Eric Fedok alternate Active Data Exchange Richard Martin principal Bowstreet James Tauber principal Epicentric Bjoern Heckel principal Epicentric Dean Moses alternate Informix Software Charles Campbell principal IONA Technologies Eric Newcomer alternate IONA Technologies Oisin Hurley principal Jamcracker David Orchard principal Progress Software Peter Lecuyer alternate Vitria Technology Inc. Richard Koo alternate
Requirements Section Leads: 4.2, 4.5 pending for 1st pass mapping.
David Ezell 4.2,: received some comments. Mainly from Henrik. Where are we headed with this. DF just 1st pass response. ACTION item done. Need to now push on mapping on email.
Paul Cotton: Just posted section review today.
Nilo: missed scenarios 19,20,21,23,34 Done:
Henrik: Include Nilo's items: Done
Hugo: Status of XML Protocol version of SOAP: Done
John Ibbotson: DS5, DS6 -> Henrik done
John Ibbotson: Deconstruct DS7: Sent out. Some responses initially from Nilo -> Agenda item 10: Done
Marting Gudgin: Intermediary Glossary item: done and on agenda
John Ibboson: DS8 -> Henrik: done
David F: Clarification question to Glen Daniels. Done and response from Glen
Paul Denning: Make changes to DS810 and send to list: pending.
David Clay: Question about how to handle binary attachment issues.
David F: Said would surface in next 2 weeks. Will do so shortly
Hugo: Really no progress. Problems in translating Schema pieces.
David F: May be premature to be addressing Schema issues. Schema in the initial draft doesn't have to align with Schema recommendation.
Jim Trezzo: Suggestion that there is considerable Schema expertise in XML Protocol-WG could get some insight help from them.
...[failed to capture]
Henrik: Knows that Allen Brown has been playing with updated schema.
Stuart: Posted a revised draft to the subgroup last Friday. Held telephone conference on Tuesday and there are good synergies with the AMG discussions and intermediary discussions. Telecon on Tuesday was very high energy and the subgroup were motivated to continue with a further conference on Thursday (2/8). There is growing concensus around the outline model (the first main diagram), the terms it uses and their relationship to the glossary. Plan to do a clean re-write as we converge on terminology. Expect to have a clean revised draft ahead of the f2f.
David F: Noting cologuial use of the phrase "XP". Noted that Microsoft are using the term XP and we need to separate ourselves from any implied connection with these products. Have asked the W3C team to speed up finding an alternative name.
Hugo/Yves?: Put into the hands of W3C legal team-> Danny Weitzner.
David F: This is becoming an issues as XP creeps into our documentation. Suggest full use of XML Protocol
Stuart: And for diagrams... get creative.
Ray D: Is delay induced by the sheer number of alternatives we're considering.
Hugo/Yves: probably not.
David F: [Missed]
David F: Will use XML Protocol throughout editors copy of documents, XMLP where not practical, also review of XP usage on Web pages:
ACTION: W3C Team
David F: XML Protocol was specifically called out for input by I18N. Need a volunteer to provide WG response by 2/23 . Need volunteers to do this. No response on Email.
Volunteers: David Clay and Ying Lee (??)
David F: Need draft response by next telcon:
David Clay: Should we aim for Monday.
David F: Yes... we'll need it by then so that WG can review response.
ACTION: Ying Ling/David Clay: Draft response to I18N Character Model document by Monday with recommendation to WG.
Paul Cotton: Advice-> there is NO way that the WG can review response without actually having reviewed the Character Model document. Need commitment from the WG to review document as action to the a substantial part of the WG.
David Clay: Will consult with Paul Cotton
ACTION on WG members to review Character Model document?? [Was this action actually issued]
Gudge: Presented 3 possible glossary definitions from email [x]. 1st defn direct from Hugo, 2nd defn adds notion of addressing; 3rd makes notion of multiple intermediaries more explicit.
Discussion:
Glen: Would like more definition on what it means to be addressable (or not) from within XML Protocol layer.
Gudge: Don't think XML Protocol can't say anything about things it can't address.
David Burdett: Is it necessary to be able to address all the intermediaries in a message from within a message.
Gudge: Different notions of addressability: direct(?)/classic?, Group, Class... There needs to be something in the message that identifies which intermediary needs to process which bits.
...
Gudge: Message routing and targetting blocks at different intermediaries are
Mark Nottingham: Targetting and routing are orthogonal.
Noah: Need a clear abstraction about the path and how it is called.
Noah: Need to perhaps ask the Abstract Modellers to think about this and how far we want to go.
Discussion involving Stuart (note taker)....
David F: Reference to mutual dependencies on other terms.
Gudge: Follow on from from David's comments on targetting and routing -> defined concepts.
David Burdett: That's a good idea.
David Clay: If we go much beyond Martin's description we risk running into defining the role of an intermediary.
Mark Nottingham: Think we need to focus on the role of an intermediary from the point of view of XML Protocol messaging.
Gudge: So which one do folks most comfortable. If we want addressability in there it needs to option #2# or #3
Mark N: Application twaks me a bit
Gudge: Propose we stick with #2 and define addressable.
Ying-Ling: Addressable by?
Gudge: Addressable from within an XMLP Message.
David B: Need to have a definition of addressable.
Marwan: Is addressable in the sense of URI.
Gudge: That's getting a bit of design...
Marwan: It would help me decide.
...
David Clay: Is an intermediary allowed to change the message... to alter to path requested by the sender.
Gudge:
John: This maybe is something to be worked on within AMG
Gudge: ...we just need a term with a clear enough meaning.
Mark N: There are so many types of intermediary elsewhere in the stack.
Henrik: We have some terms were using in the AMG for things above and below.
Gudge: ...which is why addressability from within the message is so important.
...
David F: Propose: a) Keep the #2 definition b) define addressability and c) ask AMG to take a position on path models.
Agreed:
DS7
David F: Deconstruction of DS7
John I: Action was to make some minor modifications and mail to list. Done. Theres been come comments from Nilo to widen scope and from Frank...??
No Frank/Nilo on call.
David F: Insights elsewhere?.... apparently not.
John I: Take DS7 and create some derivatives. Suggest accept DS7 as is and generate more later.
Michah: Concur... the DS's seem much more useful than he'd previously apprciated.
David F: Propose DS7 be advanced to S7 and incorporated in Editors Copy.
Agreed: DONE (Henrik)
DS805:
Glen: Clarification email sent with examples. Not getting feedback at present. Any comments?
David F: New text?
Glen: No... just clarifiation left the text alone.
David F: Multiple intermediaties on the path or types of intermediaries.
Glen: Meant to encapsulate Multiple intermediaries on the path.
David F: Signature verifying intermeiaries seem to be that they might be another scenario.
Glen: Wanted to get notion of intermediaries that add value in the path and possibly multiple thereof.
David F: Don't hear much discussion... are we happy with it?
Henrik: Need to see the wording again....
Glen: Could certainly clarify the email...
Michah: Are we asserting a correctness criteria for XMLP. Are we required to formulate XML Protocol so that it conforms to all those valuable use cases.
John I: ??
Glen: Really trying to provide some context for sanity checks without requiring developers to bend over backwards.
Michah: So... correctness is something that the intermediary has to take care of and we don't have to deal with the detail (??)
David F: These use cases can be 'larger' than what we will actually provide in XML Protocol. So there may be artifacts in a use case that could be constructed, but that we are not going to provide/define.
Noah: I think there is a danger that everything in a use case becomes a trap. Need to show that some of these things are doable.
Michah: [Missed question]
Noah: In my view, we have a requirements documents... those are our only requirements.
DS807:
Glen: Supplimentary text is too implementation orientated: agreed... provided rewording of DS807... read out. Tracking extension
Henrik: Are you saying that the person involved needs to see both ends.
Glen: Yes... implictly request response as written.
John I: Issues like this motivated routing header (??) in ebXML.
Gudge: Is it responsibility that all immediaries can understand extension or the sender that it sends message only to intermediaries that do?
Glen: The latter.... ie as in wording
David F: So are we ok with this?
David F: Can we reword on fly... Henrik/Glen?
Glen: Will take to email...
ACTION: Glen to reword DS807 and send to dist-app and Henrik to be incorporated into editors copy.
DS809
Glen: has no details of discussion from last week.
DS810
David F: QoS don't have time to eat into this.