W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 26 September 2001

Minutes of the XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 26 September 2001.

1. Roll call

Present 32/26 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review and AOB


AOB items:
(1) E-mail from David Fallside on call for volunteers to prepare resolution
sentences on 15 "meta-issues" we need to close.  Marwan Sabbouh
volunteered.
(2) Change the duration of the weekly telcon to 120 minutes to get to
issues between now and end of November/December.  This was a favored
option.  Next week, telcon will be for two hours.

3. Approval of minutes from f2f [0] and 19 Sept telcon [1]

Clarifications of F2F minute received by email in the past few days have
have been rolled in.  F2F minutes approved as posted and will be the public
F2F minutes as well.  9/19 telcon minutes approved as posted.

4. Review action items, see [2].

All actions completed except for action items # 1, 3, 9, 12, and 13.
Action item #14 is on-going.

#1 Cotton - Resolution text for Issue 30 (Pending)
#2 Mitra - Draft a first version Primer document (Done)
#3 Campbell - Support of XML Base in XML parsers and SOAP implementations
(Pending)
#4 Gudgin - Send resolution text to originator of Issue 14 (Done)
#5 Gudgin - Send resolution text to originator of Issue 66 (Done)
#6 Editors - Wording clarification for Issue 45 (Done)
#7 Hugo - Send resolution text to originator of Issue 25 (Done)
#8 Henrik/Ferris - Draft text regarding security (Done)
#9 Editors - Put Security Ed note in document (Pending)
#10 Oisin - Send resolution text to originator of Issue 63 (Done)
#11 Hadley - Start an email thread on Issue 4 (Done)
#12 Cotton - Status inside XML Query regarding void/non-void return values
(Pending)
#13 Nottingham - Write Internet draft for 427 HTTP status code (Pending)
#14 TBTF - SOAPAction as a property/feature (On-going)
#15 Editors - Insert the non-actor text (Done)
#16 Hugo - Have a skeleton of a test suite ready on agenda (Done)
#17 Fallside - Definition of SOAP application on agenda (Done)
#18 Fallside - Talk to RPCS task force and generate text for spec (Done)
#19 Editors - Change namespace for envelope in spec (Done)
#20 Editors - Add Ed Note why some sections were not written in terms of
infoset (Done)
#21 Jacque - Draft Ed Note regarding SOAP action text (Done)
#22 Editors - Put above SOAP Action text Ed Note in spec (Done)
#23 Nottingham - Send resolution text to originator of Issue 277 (Done)
#24 Editors - Incorporate Mark N' text for issues 11 and 13 (Done)
#25 Nottingham - Send resolution text to originator and XMLP re: Issue 11
and 13 (Done)

5. Status Reports

Stuart Williams provided status report on TBTF Task Force.  9/24 meeting
generated 3 actions items:
(1) Draft of concrete HTTP binding using terminology from framework  -
Henrik
(2) Message Exchange Pattern description for request-response - Stuart
(3) Review and improve transport binding framework document - All

Pending is discussion on SOAPAction as property/feature.  Discussion for
most part of the meeting was on the description of message exchange pattern
sent out by Stuart.  Feedback says "it is headed in the right direction".
There was discussion on fault handling and disposition of attachments as
well.  The revised version of MEP description was posted.  XMPL WG feedback
is invited.

Next TBTF telcon is Friday, 9/28.

6. Publication of New WDs

Chair's proposal was approved:
(1) The editors' copies of Parts 1 & 2 will be sent to the W3C for
publication as WDs. We may agree to make changes to these documents during
this telcon.
(2) Furthermore to speed up the process, with regard any changes the WG
approves on this call, the WG will trust editors to faithfully make the
changes so there will not be another review round for this text before it
is submitted to W3C for publication.

-- Status Section
Hugo posted new "Status Section" text today.  3rd paragraph in previous
draft says WG evaluated SOAP 1.1 vs requirements, and generated a new
requirements document, etc.  His revision says we split spec into 2
documents and describes new documents.

WG approved use of Part 0, 1 and 2 in short name and document URI.  Use
capital "P"" on "part".

Hugo proposed more changes to his text:
(1) Add a reference to the change log.
(2) Correct wording "Part 1, named version SOAP1.2,.." will say named SOAP
1.2  Part 1: <title in document>
(3) Cross reference other documents in this section (Part 2) with URL.

WG approved the amended Status Section text.

-- Security Ed Notes
Two security Ed notes for Part 1 and HTTP binding from Henrik (both same).
Ed Note would be addition to Part 1 as a Security Considerations section
preceding Section 6 which has Ed Note content.  Currently there is an Ed
Note in Part 2.
In the HTTP binding in Part 2, the second Ed Note would be added to
Security Considerations.
Oisin:  Proposed friendly amendment to Henrik's addition to Part 1.
Paul: Proposed "Security will be specified in other documents using
extensibility features defined in Part 1 such as SOAP Header blocks and
SOAP bindings".
Henrik: First Ed Note is sufficient - just need a security placeholder.

Approval to proceed with Henrik's email Ed Notes and publish in spec.

-- RPC Namespaces
A recap of current RPC namespace was provided.  Change RPC namespace from
/RPC to /SOAP-RPC was approved.
http://www.w3.org/2001/09/soap-rpc to be same convention as other
namespaces used.

Fallside noted that is a change for the URI where we put the schema.  Will
be made consistent with the spec.

-- Other document issues and publication cycle
Bibliography links are broken and need to regenerate properly.  List of WG
members is out-of-date.  (Editors/Hugo)

-- WG agreed to publish document text sent out Friday modulo the changes
agreed to on this call.  Editor changes will be ready by COB 9/27/01,
publication of WD expected 2-3 days later.

7. Test suite evaluation [10]

Hugo summarized his activity on testable assertions found in SOAP Version
1.2.  Hugo drafted a test suite evaluation proposal.  There are 3 tests for
the first assertion.  Oisin will update list of test assertions.  Next
step:  Testable assertions rationalized vs working draft.  Change test
accordingly.

Per Paul Cotton, noted that in other working groups, anyone can submit
tests but at least one person must approve each one. Primary point is that
we need to get existing tests from the SOAP community at large.  Hugo sent
request re: test cases to Keith Ballinger (Microsoft) but has not received
a reply.  Hugo will forward test case email to Paul/Henrik who will attempt
to expedite a response from Keith.

Noah opined that approval of test cases should require the scrutiny of more
than just one other person.

Hugo will investigate IPR regarding contributions to the test suite in
preparation of a public call for tests.

8. Issue 12 [6]: Evaluate proposals from Mark Baker [7] and Chris Ferris

[8] with a view to creating a new proposal.

Chris Ferris summarized his approach:
(1) More specificity around HTTP errors.  Codes should give hints - example
was client error 400.
(2) Binding - to allow for negotiation of media type reflected in the
message...Support text/XML, support MIME bindings, and so on...covered by
single HTTP binding spec. [Request-response pattern].

Stuart: Mark and Chris are coming at status codes for fault situations from
different ends.
Henrik:  ...inclined towards Mark Baker's proposal based on the status code
classes since it is a simpler case.

Fallside proposed adopting section 6.3 of the text in the reference
proposal from Chris Ferris:
i) Remove 4th bullet in section 6.3.1, i.e. mention of the status codes
201, 203, 205, 206.
ii) Omit 6.3.2 on HTTP Redirection.

Henrik stated that the 2nd bullet in Section 6.3.3 is problematic. All
conform or not conform to this HTTP binding - context of this binding
405...
Chris:  How about if we change "A 405 'Method Not Allowed Status' SHALL be
returned" is changed to "A 405 'Method Not Allowed Status' MAY be
returned"?
Henrik:  Agreed

It also was agreed that the 5xx server errors (section 6.3.4) be used as a
catch-all for everything else that is not a 400.

Proposed to keep section 6.3.2 in small print for further evaluation.
Chris will capture all the proposed changes in a write-up. Write-up due by
COB 9/27/01.

9. Evaluation of Primer draft (Postponed due to time)

10. SOAP Application definition (Postponed due to time)

References.

[0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/f2f-minutes
[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/19-minutes.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part1.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/29/soap12-part2.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Sep/0135.html
[6] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x12
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jun/0017.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jul/0161.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2001Sep/0095.html
[10] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/09/ts.html