Minutes of XMLP WG telcon, 9 April 2003

Based on http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc.html

1. Roll call
Present 15/11
AT&T    Mark    Jones
BEA Systems Mark    Nottingham
Canon   Jean-Jacques    Moreau
IBM David   Fallside
IBM Noah    Mendelsohn
Microsoft Corporation   Martin  Gudgin
Microsoft Corporation   Jeff    Schlimmer
Oracle  Jeff    Mischkinsky
Oracle  Anish   Karmarkar
SAP AG  Volker  Wiechers
SeeBeyond   Pete    Wenzel
Sun Microsystems    Marc    Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX)    Jacek   Kopecky
W3C Carine  Bournez
W3C Yves    Lafon

AT&T    Michah  Lerner
BEA Systems David   Orchard
Canon   Herve   Ruellan
IBM John    Ibbotson
SAP AG  Gerd    Hoelzing
Sun Microsystems    Tony    Graham
Systinet (IDOOX)    Miroslav    Simek

Ericsson    Nilo    Mitra
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech   Mario   Jeckle
Fujitsu Limited Masahiko    Narita
Fujitsu Limited Kazunori    Iwasa
Macromedia  Glen    Daniels
Matsushita Electric Ryuji   Inoue
Progress Software   Colleen Evans
Software AG Michael Champion

DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech   Andreas Riegg
IONA Technologies   Eric    Newcomer
IONA Technologies   Oisin   Hurley
Progress Software   David   Chappell
Software AG Dietmar Gaertner
Tibco   Don Mullen
Unisys  Lynne   Thompson
Unisys  Nick    Smilonich

2. Agenda review

3. Approval of minutes
[scribe_mj] minutes of April 2 approved
[scribe_mj] minutes of March 26 approved

4. review of action items...

5. status reports...

6. CR progress and issues...
Implementation and Interop Evidence, re summary table. Chair gives summary:
[scribe_mj] the entire table is green except for feature 79 and 82
[scribe_mj] but we do have a trace for each of those features
We know there are some other discrepancies, but we believe them to be small.
E.g. one implementation generates xml:lang="" which is not valid, some
implementations use previous 1.2 namespaces. In general, we believe that unless
we wait for several more months, we will not see any further significant improvement
in the evidence available.
Chair: are there any objections from the WG to going forward with this body of
evidence on the basis that it meets our CR exit criteria?
No objections.
Chair: we will go forward with this evidence.

Issue 421
[scribe_mj] we incorrectly implemented resolution of issue 355; it will now be
addressed by resolving issue 421
[scribe_mj] transmission of comments are required by intermediaries but no
clarification text will be added
[scribe_mj] issue 421 is now closed (no objections)

[scribe_mj] issue 422 is closed by removing the unused prefix  (no objections)

[Noah] NOTE:  Noah has sent closing mail on Issue 421, effectively discharging
Action #9 above.  Thank you.

7. Proposed Recommendation
[scribe_mj] we will put together our PR package and make a final PR request next
week (to the W3C team), assuming that the editors can make changes by the end of
this week
[scribe_mj] the wg will review the package early next week
[scribe_mj] the chair will set up the meeting with TimBL and W3T
[scribe_mj] ASAP and the final decision will be made just prior to that meeting
The WG agreed to all this. (No objections)

According to the W3C staff, the Requirements and Usage Scenarios docs should be
published as W3C Notes.

[jeffsch] Here's the latest URL

8. Attachments
Chair asks WG members for their opinions about the Microsoft, BEA et al proposal
for attachments, and whether the WG should work with it
[scribe_mj] MarcH has raised a couple of issues on email that haven't been addressed.
[scribe_mj] He also wonders about how security will be handled, and particularly
Another concern is the "2 copy" problem when there are 2 refs to the same resource.
Marc does not think the proposal is yet clear enough for the WG to make a decision.
[scribe_mj] Noah/IBM has concerns that the referencing model still has value.
[scribe_mj] THey would be OK taking the include proposal as a starting point for
the moment.
[scribe_mj] Particular areas of remaining concern are restating the attachment
feature spec, rethinking the relationship of this to the rest of the W3C stack
(XML Query data model),
[scribe_mj] security issues, and casting it in terms of SOAP technology.
[scribe_mj] Interop testing would be important, too.
[scribe_mj] MarkN feels that BEA's view is consistent with Noah's sentiment.
[scribe_mj] Noah: Wants freedom to reconsider "by reference" model if the proposal
doesn't pan out.
[Noah] Part of Noah's point was that IBM is willing to endorse this as starting
point, for now, as long as we do our usual careful job of working through the
technology, clarifying its relationship to SOAP itself and to other W3C standards
such as the Query Data model, and demonstrating interop (e.g. soapbuilders)
[scribe_mj] MarkN:  WS-I wants a status report on the XMLP stance on attachments.
[scribe_mj] MarkJ: There seem to be a couple of steps forward -- grounding it in the SOAP
[scribe_mj] model and quickly addressing any showstopper issues.

[scribe_mj] The working group has agreed to extend the time of the call to permit
the discussion to continue.

The following proposal was typed into IRC at the behest of the WG to ensure the
WG is clear about the expectations associated with working with the attachment
[Noah] Proposal on the status of the new attachment proposal (I.e. the document
proposed by Microsoft, BEA, etc.)
[Noah] We will agree, at least for now, to use this document as the starting point
for our next round of work on attachments.
[Noah] We will do this in much the same spirit as we accepted SOAP 1.1 as a starting
point.  We worked through it in detail, had the liberty to make radical changes
or reject it completely as we thought appropriate, but also agreed to make no
gratuitous changes.
[Noah] We also agree that it is not currently cast in terms of a SOAP-compatible
specification, so one of our jobs will be to rewrite it in that form.
[jeffm] how defines gratuitius?
[jeffm] s/how/who/
[Noah] Several participants (including me) have observed that there are a number
of important issues including the relationship to XML and WS security specification,
perhaps other specifications such as the XML Query data model, etc. that the group
will have to work through in deciding whether this technology is in the end appropriate,
and what if any refinements are appropriate.
[Noah] </End of proposal>
[Noah] gratuitous:  (from the dictionary) unnecessary or unwarranted
[Gudge] OED: gratuitous 1. uncalled for 2. free of charge
[Gudge] So, we should make sure we charge for all the changes we make ;-)
[jeffm] Yes I know that :-) - the question is how is it decided if a change is gratuitous?

No objections are raised by the WG to go forward with the proposal (by Microsoft, BEA,
etc.) on the basis proposed by Noah above and given appropriate copyright and IP

[scribe_mj] meeting adjourned

[RRSAgent] I see 13 open action items:
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to submit media type application to IETF [1]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-14-12
[RRSAgent] ACTION: jeffsch to send closing text for issue 419 [2]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-16-25
[RRSAgent] ACTION: chair to send the letter thanking Bob Cunnings [4]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-29-54
[RRSAgent] ACTION: DavidF send e-mail to implementors for any objections to making their traces public [5]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-30-13
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Nilo to incorporate the modified text for 420 into the primer [6]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-31-52
[RRSAgent] ACTION: go forth and multiply [7]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-36-26
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Editors to incorporate 'proper' resolution of Issue 355 ( not fully implemented previously ) [8]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-36-59
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to send closing email on 421 [9]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-41-28
[RRSAgent] ACTION: editors to make the correction (issue 422) [10]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-43-34
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Jacek to send closing email on 422 [11]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-43-50
[RRSAgent] ACTION: Yves to determine (by next telcon at latest) whether any PR activity is planned for going to PR [12]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-57-01
[RRSAgent] ACTION: chair, JJM, JohnI and w3 staff to strategize on publishing the requirements and usage scenarios docs [13]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-01-52
[RRSAgent] ACTION: group to start formulating the questions we'd like answered [14]
[RRSAgent]   recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/04/09-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-48-42

[Zakim] WS_XMLP()2:00PM has ended