W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 30 April 2003

1. Roll call

Present 15/10 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda review, and AOB

DavidF: Regarding Agenda item 7 (Attachments), we are still missing
copyright statements. W3C has indicated that until we receive all
statements, we have to hold off on discussion.
DavidF: Items B and C from the addendum to the agenda sent to the list
will be discussed following Agenda Item 6. Yves also sent an addendum to
the list regarding the XKMS last call review.


3. Approval of April 23 telcon minutes

Minutes approved as drafted.


4. Review action items

-Chair, JJM, JohnI, W3C: Strategize on publishing the requirements and
usage scenarios docs. Pending
-WG: Start formulating the question we'd like answered wrt attachements.
On hold.


5. Status reports

-- Registration of "application/soap+xml" media type [1]
YvesL: Except for the comment regarding the wrong link at the end, no other
comments have been received. After PR, he will send another draft and
forward to the revelant mailing list at IETF.


6. PR related items

-- comments on announcement text from W3C comm team
DF: Draft text from Janet was sent to the member list today. Any general
comments? (None) Otherwise send comments back to members list or to Janet
directly. Janet is tracking responses on the list. She will entertain
comments until EOB pacific time tomorrow (1May). The translation of the
text takes a couple of days.

-- Ratification of minutes from f2f meetings
DavidF: During the PR review, it was discovered that minutes for two f2f
meetings had not been completed. These minutes have been finalised and need
to be
ratified by the WG:
(i) minutes of Burlington f2f, November 2001 [2],
Previously reviewed but not approved due to lack of roll, updated version
has roll and some formatting cleanup
Minutes approved as drafted.

(ii) minutes of Cannes f2f, February 2002 [3],
Not previously reviewed.
Minutes approved as drafted.

(Addendum Item B) Comments on the idea of XML and XML Schema subsets
DavidF: XML Core and XML Schema WGs are soliciting comments from XMLP WG
on the idea of XML and XML Schema subsets (profiles). Any comments /
discussion on what we may want to say on the subset idea?
NoahM: Would find it helpful before we proceed to gather the history of
the issue. This issue found its way to the TAG a couple of months ago.
How does the question being asked relate to both the process and the
content of the analysis that the TAG was doing. We drafted a fairly
formally response on this before.
DavidF: It was a 'to do' item given to all the chairs on WS-CG.
NoahM: Is it a by-product of the TAG discussion? Or Core going directly
to WS-CG?
MikeC: I think it's the latter. I think TAG deferred it to Core.
NoahM: I think it's appropriate to unearth our response to TAG and
consider offering it to Core as our response, unless we feel they're asking
a different question. I think there are two closely related questions.
(1) What did the Protocol WG think it had done in its work and specs (did
we define a subset, if so, for use by whom, etc.), and (2) do we as a WG
wish to take a position going back to Core on whether they should promote
the adoption / creation of a general purpose XML subset?. If so, how
should it relate to the limited use we make of XML?
DavidO: TAG asked whether it supported what was called the subset that XMLP
achieved, and TAG opined without too much regard to how the work was done -
asked a technical question and gave a technical answer. Noah's approach
about XMLP being active in discussion with XML Core about what such a
profile subset would look like would be very useful.
DavidF: Sounds like the first thing for us to do is to unearth our
response to TAG and our rationale and use that as our starting point?
DavidO: Something on the order of: Here's what we said to the TAG - we
still think it's applicable - do you want to have an ongoing discussion,
diving into this in detail?
NoahM: Need to come out with the answers to two questions: (1) is it a
good idea to do a subset at all? (2) if so, what should it be?
DavidF: Task someone to go find our rationale and start a thread with the
two questions.

(Addendum Item C). WS-CG concerns regarding adoption of SOAP 1.2 with WSDL
DavidF: The WS-CG is concerned about adoption of SOAP 1.2 given that the
current version of WSDL in use was designed for SOAP 1.1. Two suggestions
from the WS-CG are for XMLP WG to identify a list of potential issues
arising from the mismatch, and to solicit comments on how to handle these
NoahM: First - clarification is the CG suggesting a delay in PR?
DavidF: No.
NoahM: It's odd it's coming to us in this way. It would seem the WSDWG
owns the responsibility of how they evolve the WSDL technology. However,
perhaps by looking at the places where SOAP 1.2 has problems with WSDL 1.1,
we could help evolve ways WSDL 1.2 could meet its goals.
AnishK: The implementors participating in the generation of interop traces
used WSDL 1.1 to support SOAP 1.2 - they did find a way to do this. Not to
say there aren't any issues.
MarkJ: If there's some fundamental problem - really only solution is to go
to WSDL group and emphasize the importance of getting their stake in the
ground soon.
DavidF: The CG wasn't asking for anything super formal. The request was
couched more in terms of 'is there something relatively lightweight and
informal that might just help people out here ' - a Note perhaps.
MikeC: That was my understanding too. They want a sort of SOAP 1.2 for
WSDL 1.1 users in a nutshell type thing - or at least what information we
can quickly gather to help people. A fairly light Note.
MarcH: Do people have in mind a Note that specifies WSDL extenstion
elements for using SOAP 1.2 - current WSDL binding implies SOAP 1.1. Could
see something like that could be useful - may be some resistence form WSDWG
that that would be in their domain, which may be the best place for it to
be done. Concern is that people will put off supporting SOAP 1.2 until
WSDL 1.2 is ready unless something like that exists.
DavidF: From the CG point of view, yes that concern is exactly the sort of
thing motivating this comment.
Gudge: How hard is it write a SOAP 1.2 WSDL binding? Shouldn't be that
DavidF: Suggest we could formally ask the WSDWG whether they would be
interested in jointly producing something to allay people's concerns about
using SOAP 1.2. Do we think we should make any statement to the world?
MarcH: I think we need to say something, otherwise it may impact SOAP 1.2
MikeC: Essentially a public relations issue for XMLP - make the point you
can do useful things with SOAP 1.2 without having to wait for WSDL 1.2.
NoahM: If that's the issue, maybe as we prepare Q&A to support the press
release, one Q&A should be: can you use with this WSDL 1.1 and is there a
problem there? No, you can look at places like SOAPBuilders where people
have proposed interoperable ways of doing this, etc.
DavidF: For PR or for Rec? Is Janet preparing Q&A for PR?
YvesL: Don't think so.
DavidF: Propose that for Rec (not PR) we start investigating what a Q&A
might look like - a pointed question such as: "Can I use SOAP 1.2 with WSDL
1.1?" or something to that effect and leave it to the W3C comm team members
to decide if it's published or back-pocket. We will solicit the help of
the WSDWG. Start a brief email thread on the member list in conjunction
with the WSDWG with a view to come up with Q&A for Rec.

(Addendum Item from Yves). XML Key Management Specification (XKMS) last
call review:
DavidF: XKMS have asked us for a last call review of their Bindings
Version 2.0 [4]. Is there a volunteer to review the section on a SOAP
binding [5]?
JohnI: Volunteer
YvesL: Last call period ends May 23.
DavidF: We'll schedule a review in a couple of weeks.


7. Attachments

DavidF: Nothing we can discuss on this agenda item until the copyrights
are all received.

--Meeting adjourned

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/06/registering-mediatype.html
[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/11/2728-minutes.html
[3] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/02/2526-minutes.html
[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2-bindings/
[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/xkms2-bindings/#__Section_3