W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 26 June 2002

Derived from IRC Log

1. Roll

Present, 25/23 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review and AOB

DF asked how many people would miss nexts week's telcon on account of the July 4 US holiday.
Only 3 people said they would miss the meeting.
[DaveO] df: there will be a meeting next week 

3. Approval of June 19 minutes

No objection to approving as posted.

4. Action items

[Yves] editors: pending 
[Yves] markB: (removed) 
[Yves] carine/yves: done 
[Yves] DavidF (with PaulC, Stuart, DavidO): done 
[Yves] markb: done 
[Yves] nilo: done 
[Yves] anish: done 
[Yves] anish: done 
[Yves] davidf: done 

5. Last Call Business

No business to discuss because SOAP 1.2 went to Last Call this morning.

6. Status of media-type draft, IANA application, etc

[DaveO] mb: iana has trees for people and groups. 
[DaveO] mb: after approval from ietf, then iana can give approval 
[DaveO] df: after iana approval then "bolt" information into the spec. 
[DaveO] df: tag asking xmlp to blaze new trail in the process of media type registration 
[DaveO] sw: understand and tag flexible 
[DaveO] df: asking henrik/markb about options for how text can be moved around. 
[DaveO] df: submit to ietf, remains as draft, draft will have caveats saying "intend technical content to be in w3c spec",
iana et al will have to figure out process. 
[DaveO] mb: xmlp wg should be prepared for proposal to not work, e.g. because there must be an rfc for media type to be in ietf tree. 
[DaveO] sw: possibly have to duplicate the content 
[DaveO] jack: what if ietf requires changes - ed note: ye olde copy by value or by reference problem 
WG decided to submit IETF draft without any language in that draft indicating our intentions to move the draft's contents to a
W3C spec.

7. Implementation

[DaveO] df: there are 130 and something test assertions, therefore <= 130 and something features. {To Anish} Can the features indeed
be extracted from the test assertions?
Anish: yes, it is a good starting point
HFN suggests we also need to do outreach. 
[DaveO] df: we do need outreach, have started doing it personally
DF summary : (1) identify features, (2) record implementations of features, (3) outreach 
[DaveO] df: if we don't have implementations of all the features, have to go into CR period 
[Noah] I was the one who suggested asking soapbuilders
[HFN] right! 
[HFN] Cut at separation: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2002Jun/0222.html 
[DaveO] nm: suggests that soap builders deal with day to day, and then move to dist-app if questions about design of implementation

8. Attachment Feature document

[HFN] Henrik's draft is at "http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-dime-soap-00.txt". Section 2 contains the "abstract description". 
[DaveO] do: mentioned the wsarch and wscg for chartering work 
Discussion of contents of Attachment Feature document, especially content related to particular attachment implementations. 
[DaveO] df: summary of what will be in Attachement Feature document- description in the abstract of an attachment feature, that the description
should be couched in terms consistent with existing soap 1.2 framework, this would be the contents of the Note. 
[marc] AFTF will produce proposals, WG will have ultimate say 
[marc] is it ok with WG if AFTF conducts its business in public, including publication of draft documents? 
[marc] no opposition 
DF notes there will be regular updates of AFTF work to the WG
[marc] Discussion around scheduling of first AFTF call 
[marc] DF: 1st call @ 8.30 on 1st July 

[marc] Would anybody like to volunteer to read through Pt2 too identify features for implementations ? 
[marc] No response 
[marc] Call adjourned 

Summary of Action items.

[RRSAgent]ACTION: DavidF: Follow up on getting hard commitment for review from relevant other WGs and figure out what the extend of pushback from xforms WG on timing is. [1]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Stuart: Check on TAG/IANA interactions (as reportedly handled by IanJ) [2]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Yves: Follow up when the next W3C/IETF coordination meeting happens and check whether the media type problem can be added as an agenda item [3]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: DavidF: Start driving discussion on media type process  [4]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: MarkB: ship it (the media type draft that is)!  [5]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Lynne: Extract requirement assertions (MUST/MAY/SHOULD) from SOAP 1.2 spec for incorporation in table 2 so that we can verify implementation of those [6]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Anish: Extract "features" from SOAP 1.2 spec part 1 for incorporation in an implementation table [7]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: DavidF: Find owner for task for extracting "features" from SOAP 1.2 spec part 2 for incorporation in an implementation table [8]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Yves: Take responsibility for updating table 2 in "http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html" [9]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: DavidF: Draft a mail intended for soapbuilders soliciting implementation input and where to send that input etc. Draft will go to WG list for review [10]
[RRSAgent]ACTION: Henrik: Set up bridge for 8.30 PT Monday July 1st for AFTF [11]