W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 29 May 2002

Based on IRC log of xmlprotocol on 2002-05-29

1. Roll

Present 30/24 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review and AOB

No items.


3. Approval of May 22 telcon minutes

     May 22 telcon minutes approved


4. Review Action Items


5. Status reports

mh: probably need another review cycle to look at all the changes
triggered by review feedback
nm: thought that we were only making changes of a strictly editorial
nature... can't afford another 2-3 days to review these specs.
df: those were the ground rules
nm: prefer we minimize changes that are no more than a matter of taste
mh: lots and lots of little changes
nm: 95% isolated enough, but there are a few where an isolated change
changes meaning elsewhere
df: need to scale back on this activity, strictly enforce the rule that 
we're only looking at changes that are very very minor
df: to those about to review part 2, are these in the spirit of small
changes? if so, when will the reviews be completed?
skw: tried to identify the changes that are important and those which
are informational
df: still planning on part 2 review?
skw: yes, but not sure can complete by eow
df: rather see editors wrap up what we already have.
move immediately to LC as soon as GET changes are incorporated.
publish a WD with last few small changes in it, then another WD
(LC) with GET changes incorporated
when will list be finished?
mh: can finish my bits tomorrow
DF: can you finish be end of day tomorrow (THurs)?

DF asks editors to finish by EOB tomorrow
Editors agree

Henrik: do we skip things that are more than editorial?
df: yes, put on last call issues list
todo to editors to add those issues to the list. Agreed by editors.

df: anish, plans for finishing editorial work?
ak: by next telcon
mj: what exactly goes to LC?
df: look at last agenda item, should answer that question
df: will ask next telcon whether we are comfortable with that doc (that
doesn't include GET) going out for LC

df: highland, any update on email?
hmm: nope
df: mark baker, any update on application/soap+xml ID?
mb: updated ID sent out
df: issue w/r/t namespace?
mb: kind of important for ID to have this fixed
df: is there a way that we can publish this draft with the ability to
change the namespace?
mb: think there is, but useful to know ahead of time that the namespace
might change
df: are we ready to make the decision to publish this ID to IANA now?
mb: would prefer to have someone review this first
nm: any time sensitive issues?
mb: july ??
mb: could publish as another IETF ID before submitting to IANA
df: okay, why not submit as new ID to IETF, plan to get final opinion
before july 1
df: couple weeks before we need final decision, remind group we need
another look at the draft at that point


7. Evaluation of I18N's responses to XMLP's comments on CharMod

ask i18n wg if they have any recommendation for [I] requirements in charmod
not part of charmod lc review


8. GETF Report

URI for GETF proposal for MEP nd HTTP binding changes:
still a wip

df: when GETF and WG are comfortable and reaching consensus, then we'll
approach the TAG seeking a yeah/nay.
GETF seeking permission from WG to go to TAG for informal feedback
so we can have a fast f/b loop with TAG.
silence is assent.

cf: reviews the essence of the GETF proposal for the oneway pull MEP
and associated HTTP binding changes
hfn: reviews the three options that cf and hfn discussed after the call
df: any other comments from GETF folk?
df: any comments from WG?
jk: concerned about sending the empty SOAP message...
jk: wanted a true oneway pull

nm: anything we can do to get to closure fast is a good thing.
Either approach is reasonably acceptable and there are deeper
things to get right in this
jk: +1 to noah
cf: 1++
df: silence is thumbs up
df: revisit f2f question
nm: major thing that we have to get through in GETF is RPC...
references email:
nm: GETF has yet to review this proposal
hfn: FWIW, I just sent the three options to the WG list - they of course
have no standing within the GETF or the WG, you can find it at
mj: how far out, assume not in august?
df: yes, that's another factor that makes this more complex
hfn: if we have everything except GET by Friday, if we commit the GETF
to get a proposal out by a week, is there no reason we can't review
this by next wednesday?
nm: reason we're delaying is that we don't want to do this with the
possibility that the TAG will delay
nm: if we had a proposal tomorrow, might still take a week to get f/b
from TAG
nm: concerned that rushing it out doesn't solve the problem
df: general sense from group that we probably should move the f2f?
df: if we thought that GETF was done, and we could go to LC in three
weeks from end of this week, then we could have f2f on jul 30-aug 1 and
cut duration of LC by one week
df: that would be 5 instead of 6 weeks
df: doable if GETF and WG can reach consensus in 2 weeks
nm: schema is meeting that week (of jul), so is query, meeting in redmond
df: we may decide something now that for the benefit of our host...
df: bay area or redmond (west coast)
df: if we went to LC 17 Jun, would give us almost 6 week LC if we had
f2f 30 Jul. What does WG think of 5 week LC period?
What does WG think of GETF getting work done in 3 weeks?
nm, hfn, cf: think we can do this
df: that's 3 GETF members, anyone else? silence is assent
df: resolved; postpone f2f to 30 Jul, pencil in rrsagent, please list actions