Based on IRC log http://www.w3.org/2003/04/23-xmlprotocol-irc.html
1. Roll call Present 15/11 AT&T, Mark Jones BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham BEA Systems, David Orchard DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle IBM, David Fallside (chair) IBM, Noah Mendelsohn IBM, John Ibbotson Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer Oracle, Anish Karmarkar Progress Software, Colleen Evans SAP AG, Volker Wiechers SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley (scribe) W3C, Carine Bournez W3C, Yves Lafon Excused AT&T, Michah Lerner DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky Progress Software, David Chappell SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham Canon, Herve Ruellan Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau Regrets Ericsson, Nilo Mitra Fujitsu Limited, Kazunori Iwasa Fujitsu Limited, Masahiko Narita Macromedia, Glen Daniels Matsushita Electric, Ryuji Inoue Software AG, Michael Champion Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky Absent IONA Technologies, Oisin Hurley IONA Technologies, Eric Newcomer Software AG, Dietmar Gaertner Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek Tibco, Don Mullen Unisys, Lynne Thompson Unisys, Nick Smilonich 2. Agenda review [scribe_marc] AOB: Planning another F2F meeting [scribe_marc] DF: Working assumption that we continue with attachment work and errata 3. Approval of last telcon minutes [scribe_marc] April 16 telcon minutes approved No objections 4. Action item review [scribe_marc] 1 pending [scribe_marc] 2 pending [scribe_marc] 3 done [scribe_marc] 4 being done now: [scribe_marc] DF sent out suggested wording for copyright [scribe_marc] Only had one statement wrt copyright so we are still incomplete [scribe_marc] Have asked for copyright from all authors of the attachment proposal [scribe_marc] Advised by W3C of discomfort with progressing with attachment proposal pending input from attorney [scribe_marc] And so in this telcon we will continue work on requirements 5. Status Reports Media type registration [Yves] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Apr/0048.html [scribe_marc] YL: 2 alternate wordings proposed by NM [scribe_marc] DF suggests we go with longer version [scribe_marc] no objection [scribe_marc] YL next step is republish RFC [scribe_marc] YL after main spec PR publication PR progress [scribe_marc] DF: PR request sent to W3C, meeting tomorrow afternoon with W3C (gate meeting) [scribe_marc] DF: no problems expected [scribe_marc] DF: outcome of meeting is go/no go decision [scribe_marc] DF expects 'go' [DavidF] see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Apr/0058.html [scribe_marc] DF: review period ends June 7th [scribe_marc] DF: earliest REC date June 21st, latest June 28th [scribe_marc] DF: alert your AC reps... [scribe_marc] DF: will be requesting testimonials for when REC goes out [scribe_marc] AK: how deal with issues raised against doc between now and PR [scribe_marc] DF: they go in 'private hold bucket' for now [scribe_marc] DF: when we create PR issues list we will add those items to it [scribe_marc] DF: may have to set up member only issues list if we receive member only comments 6. Attachments [scribe_marc] DF: IP and copyright already covered [jeffsch] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Mar/0027.html [scribe_marc] requirements [scribe_marc] Discussion last week about wheter to keep R6 [scribe_marc] R7 needs to be factored into thinking [scribe_marc] R6 [scribe_marc] DF: do we keep it or not? [scribe_marc] NM: this requirement goes back to the by-reference model [scribe_marc] NM: now that attachments are modelled as children, use of URI may not be mandatory [scribe_marc] NM: either drop entirely or make mechanism available for optional use [scribe_marc] DO: thinks NM is getting to the right place for this requirment [scribe_marc] DO: if there is a base URI available then any part will also have a URI - feature inherited from XML [scribe_marc] NM: separate model from implementation [scribe_marc] doesn't think this requirement belongs to the implementation [scribe_marc] NM: doesn't think current proposal is clear on role of binding [scribe_marc] DF: we can choose to set these requirements aside for now [scribe_marc] MJ: R7 also talks in terms of parts [scribe_marc] discussion on whether we can continue looking at requirements without getting into details of proposal [scribe_marc] DF: 7, 11 and 12 talk about part in some detail [scribe_marc] MJ: seems like most are going to be related to choice of technology [scribe_marc] NM: old model had parts hanging around in the packaging named by URIs [scribe_marc] NM: new model quite different [scribe_marc] not sure that current formulation of requirements applied to proposed model [scribe_marc] MJ: not sure why we can't talk about abstract parts [scribe_marc] MJ: is there not still a notion of a part regardless of serialization ? [scribe_marc] NM: terminology issue. notion of part is choice of serialization [scribe_marc] NM: requirements apply to one serialization - proposal doesn't separate binding from model adequately [scribe_marc] DF: proposes that we adjourn the meeting as we are unable to talk about the proposal freely (pending IP release) [scribe_marc] DF, JS, MN will all pursue getting legalities sorted out ASAP [scribe_marc] DF: asks authors of doc to send in any fragments of IP+copyright info ASAP [scribe_marc] DO: process seems to have been more difficult than expected. Are there things can suggest to AB re submissions to WGs? DF: noted Meeting adjourned after 1 hour [RRSAgent] I see no action items