W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 19 Se ptember 2001

Minutes of XML Protocol telcon, 19 Sept 2001.

1. Roll call

Present 33/28 Excused Regrets Absent

3. Agenda Review:

   One additional item added by DavidF. A proposal to have the February
   face to face for two days instead of three based on the results of the
   email survey [1]. Also to allow observers as space allowed. This proposal
   was approved by the WG.

4. Action Items:

   Long list of action items were stepped through without controversy.

5. Status Reports:


        The editors are waiting for text from Issues 11 and 13.
        They have incorporated some editorial comments but are also
        waiting for text for the RPC and TB sections.

        RPC namespace and results element were decided upon at
        the face to face. These need to be described in the text.
        DavidF will followup with the RPC TF to generate this text
        by noon PST on friday for submission to the editors.

        Proposal by DavidF that by the end of the week the editors
        complete incorporating all comments. The resulting document is
        the WD going forward. The WG group can then review it for
        several days and take a vote at the next telcon.

        Some of the issues which need to be incorporated:
             - Changing the namespaces to reflect the new date
             - Add some ednotes to explain why infoset terminology is
               not used in some sections.
             - Demote section 7 in part 2: Security Considerations to
               the HTTP section and change the wording.

        This proposal was accepted by the WG.


      The TBTF is currently pursuing 3 actions:

          1. Clarifying the description of the framework
          2. HTTP binding cast (using common language) in terms of
             the framework.
          3. Define message exchange pattern that will be used in #2
             that can also be useful for other bindings.

6. Comments on the face to face:

   Confusion over the apparent inconsistency in SOAPAction
   resolution. The crux is that it is optional yet may result in a
   fault. The generalized question is then what is a feature and what
   is core?

   The consensus was that the text should describe SOAPAction as a
   feature and there would be text describing features as
   optional. But for the interim the accepted proposal wass to add an
   ednote stating that the WG is considering recasting SOAPAction in
   a more general framework for optional features. Action item
   assigned to prepare this note.

7. Issue 77:

   Section 2.5 part 1 already has some text on this subject. The
   accepted proposal was to retain status quo on this. Mark is to send
   some resolution text to the originator of this issue.

8. Issues 11 and 13:

   The proposal+amendment [2, 3] on the mailing list was accepted. However
   there was some debate over where the text should appear, either
   in the WD or in something the TBTF is producing. The decision was
   made to include it in the WD for now and move it if it looks
   out of place.

9. Postponed due to time.

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Sep/0075.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0119.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Sep/0126.html