Minutes of XML Protocol WG telcon, 18 June 2003
Minutes based on IRC log
1. Roll call
Present 13/11
AT&T, Mark Jones
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
Canon, Herve Ruellan
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
IBM, John Ibbotson
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn (Scribe)
IBM, David Fallside (Chair)
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky
W3C, Carine Bournez
Excused
AT&T, Michah Lerner
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek
W3C, Yves Lafon
Regrets
Ericsson, Nilo Mitra
Fujitsu Limited, Kazunori Iwasa
Fujitsu Limited, Masahiko Narita
IONA Technologies, Oisin Hurley
Macromedia, Glen Daniels
Matsushita Electric, Ryuji Inoue
SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
Absent
IONA Technologies, Eric Newcomer
Software AG, Dietmar Gaertner
Software AG, Michael qChampion
- ************Noah is recording minutes as scribenm**********************
- 18:12:14 [scribenm]
- DF reviews the agenda
- 18:12:35 [scribenm]
- Last week's minutes approved without dissent
- 18:12:50 [scribenm]
- Review of action items:
- 18:13:12 [scribenm]
- Chair et. al.: publish requirements/usage scenarios PENDING...process doc not in place
- 18:13:24 [scribenm]
- Mark Nottingham submit media type to IETF DONE
- 18:13:49 [scribenm]
- Jean-Jacques Moreau write up SOAP 1.2/WSDL Q&A positioning DONE
- 18:14:14 [scribenm]
- Tony Graham: mail on issue 433 DONE and we presume no pushback
- 18:14:24 [scribenm]
- End action item review
- 18:14:28 [scribenm]
- Begin status reports
- 18:16:48 [scribenm]
- Continuing status reports:
- 18:16:57 [scribenm]
- Nilo reports part 0 up to date
- 18:17:11 [scribenm]
- Gudge: JJM has made all changes
- 18:17:29 [scribenm]
- DF: we believe that other than boilerplate, membership lists, etc., we believe they are up to date?
- 18:17:32 [scribenm]
- Gudge: yes
- 18:17:55 [scribenm]
- Anish: test collection up to date. Only change from PR is removal of test T20
- 18:18:14 [scribenm]
- Anish: other than boilerplate, etc., test collection doc is ready to go.
- 18:18:34 [scribenm]
- DF: sounds like all documents are ready to go, modulo boilerplate, membership changes (incl. some in last couple of weeks)
- 18:19:00 [scribenm]
- DF: Editors' copies of all docs are the latest? Gudge & Anish: yes
- 18:19:45 [scribenm]
- DF to Carine: what's the procedure for publication
- 18:19:58 [scribenm]
- Carine: we pick up the ed copies and move them for publication
- 18:21:08 [scribenm]
- DF: are editors around? Gudge: yes. Anish: yes traveling next week but responding to emails (I'm mostly around too, NRM) Nilo to be asked via email.
- 18:22:08 [scribenm]
- DF: Carine...we should talk a bit to get
- 18:22:16 [scribenm]
- ...membership updates right.
- 18:22:37 [scribenm]
- DF: editors should also roll in any resolution of issue 434...we'll see what happens with that...then pass on to W3C team
- 18:23:03 [scribenm]
- Gudge: any up-to-date membership list available? DF: yes, sent to Yves recently. Will dig out and send to us. Editors: we'll roll it in when we get it.
- 18:23:48 [scribenm]
- Planning for next F2f...we'll skip that.
- 18:23:58 [scribenm]
- Next issue: Q&A for SOAP 1.2 & WSDL
- 18:24:14 [scribenm]
- DF has merged input from JJM and Noah...URL is in agenda.
- 18:24:31 [scribenm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2003Jun/0026.html
- 18:24:49 [scribenm]
- Accept friendly ammendment to add word "please" :-)
- 18:25:18 [scribenm]
- Will send to Janet Daly, for W3C team to keep in reserve as either background or to publish if there's lots of interest
- 18:25:22 [scribenm]
- Agreed without dissent
- 18:25:44 [scribenm]
- ACTION: David Fallside to send WSDL/SOAP 1.2 text to W3C comm team
- 18:26:08 [scribenm]
- Registration of new media type....
- 18:26:52 [scribenm]
- Mark Nottingham: in process of becoming internet draft version 3. Unsure... may have to wait 2 weeks before requesting pub as RFC. Either way, can request RFC pub in max 2 weeks.
- 18:27:03 [scribenm]
- Once that happens, we can request IANA registration.
- 18:27:27 [scribenm]
- ACTION: Mark Nottingham...continue shepherding media type to RFC ASAP
- 18:28:10 [scribenm]
- Carine: do we need to deal with URI's for media types in our document
- 18:28:33 [scribenm]
- MNot: internet drafts don't get stable URIs until published as RFC. Or could reference in IANA registry.
- 18:29:03 [scribenm]
- MNot: if we want a stable reference, we probably need to publish ourselves as W3C doc. Make sense?
- 18:29:07 [scribenm]
- DF: hmmm....
- 18:30:58 [davidF]
- http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-baker-soap-media-reg-02.txt
- 18:31:25 [scribenm]
- mnot: that will disappear when new version pub'd or in 6 months
- 18:35:12 [scribenm]
- Proposal from DF: update the biblio entry for [SOAP MediaType]
- 18:35:54 [scribenm]
- ...to say: reference is to internet draft for as long as it's current, then to the corresponding IANA registry entry...all of this to be done if the stable reference isn't available by our cutoff date.
- 18:41:11 [scribenm]
- MNot: the MUST reference is to the appendix
- 18:42:42 [scribenm]
- Proposal from Noah: Delete second sentence of appendix a part 2. Move [SOAP Media type] to informative references. Add NOTE in place of deleted 2nd sentence indicating IANA registry process for the type is underway (and maybe also indicating possiblility that future versions of SOAP will reference it normatively)
- 18:42:47 [scribenm]
- Agreed without dissent.
- 18:42:59 [davidF]
- ACTION: MarkN, spec editors, W3C staff & chair to complete part2/appendix A and biblio changes per NM's proposal
- 18:43:52 [scribenm]
- Begin discussion of PR issues
- 18:44:03 [scribenm]
- Issue 434 raised by Jean-Jacques Moreau
- 18:44:25 [scribenm]
- http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-pr-issues.html#x434
- 18:45:52 [scribenm]
- JJM and Noah seem to agree that spec is OK on multicast in general (see for example http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jun/0051.html)
- 18:46:17 [scribenm]
- DF: question is whether we should change phrase "the ultimate endpoint" to "an ultimate endpoint" where grammatically sensible
- 18:49:11 [scribenm]
- Noah and Jacek both observed some slight preference for no change. Noah notes, however, an implicit agreement on his part to support change if it makes JJM or others happy.
- 18:49:22 [scribenm]
- DF: I think we need a strong preference expressed to make a change.
- 18:49:34 [scribenm]
- DF: formal proposal...any objection to closing 434 by making no change?
- 18:49:38 [scribenm]
- Agreed without dissent.
- 18:49:51 [scribenm]
- ...fell behind...what are we discussing now please?
- 18:50:03 [caribou]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-archive/2003Jun/0020.html
- 18:50:08 [scribenm]
- Thank you!
- 18:51:33 [scribenm]
- This appears to be a dissent by AOL (Ray Whitmer) relating to our charter and our use of technologies such as Soap+Attachments and MIME vs XML
- 18:51:56 [scribenm]
- DF: question to W3C staff? Was this officially posted? Is it actionable by us...can we or should we do anything about this?
- 18:52:12 [scribenm]
- Carine: well, I at least want the group to be aware that this concern has
been posted.
- 18:52:47 [scribenm]
- ((note from scribenm: since this is an important topic, I would welcome corrections to my minute taking from anyone else who's following on IRC..))
- 18:53:22 [scribenm]
- DF; is W3C requesting a formal response from WG on this?
- 18:53:47 [scribenm]
- Carine: not really, it refers to substantial issues, but no specific issue
is raised...I do not think the WG needs to answer.
- 18:57:19 [scribenm]
- DF: there's nothing technical here
- 18:57:43 [scribenm]
- Noah: well, there are at least broad technical issues raised. We shouldn't be inflamatory in pretending that nothing technial at all is discussed
- 18:57:56 [scribenm]
- Gudge: yes there are technical points made, but nothing we haven't explicitly discussed
- 18:58:03 [scribenm]
- +1 from Mnot, +1 from Jacek
- 18:58:43 [scribenm]
- DF: is W3C preparing a response on non-technical issues?
- 18:59:10 [scribenm]
- Carine: yes I think so. Note also that the note itself anticipates that
SOAP will move forward (I'll try and copy paste that portion of Ray's note
below...hang on)
- 18:59:22 [scribenm]
- ===begin quote from Ray's note ==============
- 18:59:23 [scribenm]
- I do not really expect that W3C will go back and fix these parts
- 18:59:23 [scribenm]
- although we believe them to be significant flaws. But I hope these
- 18:59:23 [scribenm]
- comments are of some value looking forward, and it was not clear
- 18:59:23 [scribenm]
- that the comments would be afforded any relevance at all if I voted
- 18:59:23 [scribenm]
- to accept or abstain. The consequeces will continue to ripple
- 18:59:25 [scribenm]
- until addressed, in my opinion.
- 18:59:32 [scribenm]
- ====end quote from Ray's note ===============
- 19:01:41 [scribenm]
- DF; OK, W3C will respond to AOL and Ray on process issues, and we recommend W3C tell them that we perceive no new technical issues raised. We as a workgroup concur that none of the issues raised are new.
- 19:02:09 [scribenm]
- DF: do we need to agree this formally?
- 19:02:42 [scribenm]
- silence...agreed informally
- 19:03:02 [scribenm]
- DF: anyone not OK with this?
- 19:03:03 [scribenm]
- silence
- 19:04:03 [scribenm]
- ACTION: Gudge send email to send email to Jean-Jacques and list closing 434...need end of week latest.
- 19:04:16 [scribenm]
- Done with agenda item 6
- 19:04:48 [scribenm]
- Agenda item 7: Attachments
- 19:04:58 [scribenm]
- Would like to move directly to document from Herve, Noah, Mnot
- 19:05:16 [scribenm]
- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Jun/0053.html
- 19:05:16 [JacekK]
- someone please post the changed doc's url
- 19:11:08 [scribenm]
- DF: editors any comments
- 19:11:11 [scribenm]
- Mnot: need to read it
- 19:11:21 [scribenm]
- Noah: +1, but overall title is too broad
- 19:11:43 [scribenm]
- Jacek: binary only?
- 19:11:55 [scribenm]
- Mnot: I don't think so. We want to do XML too
- 19:14:36 [scribenm]
- Noah; we have an open issue on that
- 19:14:55 [scribenm]
- Gudge: I don't like seeing the Include spec burried in the HTTP layer...it's useful elsewhere.
- 19:15:33 [scribenm]
- Some discussion...some agreement that if we call out Include separate from HTTP, then that's a middle 3rd layer.
- 19:15:47 [scribenm]
- Jacek: I think the bottom layer should be MIME multipart, not HTTP.
- 19:16:01 [scribenm]
- Jacek: don't need to split inclusion from that bottom layer
- 19:16:47 [scribenm]
- MNot: think I agree with gist of what Jacek just said...not sure I understand the details. Do you (Jacek) see need for new HTTP binding.
- 19:17:04 [scribenm]
- Jacek: yes, or enhancement to existing one. The binding is definitely affected or replaced.
- 19:21:23 [scribenm]
- Noah: let's do this carefully. We may be setting a precedent for how WSDL names and uses bindings that do or don't implement features. For example, is it sensible to point to our old binding but say "also implementing this new feature", or do we need a new binding whenever a new feature is used? If so, what compatibility or substitutability can be expressed in WSDL, etc?
- 19:21:43 [scribenm]
- JacekK notes that the optimization feature gives copyright to INRIA, but the new European host is ERCIM, see http://www.w3.org/Consortium/#background
- 19:22:55 [scribenm]
- Some discussion of whether and how to reconcile with our old abstract feature document?
- 19:23:05 [scribenm]
- Gudge: can the new one supercede the old?
- 19:23:17 [scribenm]
- DF: I'd want to do some work before making that decision. Otherwise, no
problem.
- 19:23:24 [scribenm]
- Gudge: right, not immediately
- 19:23:56 [scribenm]
- DF: could say in WD "this may (or may not) supercede attachment feature doc"
- 19:24:46 [scribenm]
- DF: think we need a bit of cleanup before publishing as WD. Name change is critical. Two or three layer issue. Maybe some more text relating us to attachment feature doc and http binding.
- 19:25:18 [scribenm]
- Also relationship to attachment requirements.
- 19:25:53 [scribenm]
- DF: anything else you'd want to see before publishing as WD?
- 19:27:57 [scribenm]
- Jacek: PASWA covers more than inclusion compared to inclusion. Should we put in placeholder for those.
- 19:28:25 [scribenm]
- Noah: friendly ammendment...a note saying other capabilities of PASWA will be considered by the WG later, and may show up in this feature or elsewhere (if at all)
- 19:28:32 [scribenm]
- Jacek: that's fine
- 19:29:20 [scribenm]
- DF: Editors should come up with better name, say relationship to attachement feature, requirements, and HTTP binding is TBD, also a note pointing to other PASWA mechanisms as discussed above.
- 19:29:45 [scribenm]
- DF: Also remove W3C WD status from subtitle and text
- 19:30:21 [scribenm]
- DF: send to distApp for final decision on WD publication next week
- 19:30:43 [scribenm]
- DF: any dissent or comments (a few +1s)?
- 19:31:13 [scribenm]
- ACTION: Editors of abstract feature to publish updates to distApp (title, refs to 3 docs, PASWA features)
- 19:33:02 [scribenm]
- DF: we need to decide on response on XInclude questions (sent to us by core?)
- 19:33:17 [scribenm]
- DF: we should tell them our WD schedule for the feature
- 19:33:25 [Gudge]
- yes, sent by JMarsh on behalf of Core
- 19:33:31 [scribenm]
- Thanks
- 19:34:01 [scribenm]
- Jacek: core or WSDL WG asking this?
- 19:34:05 [scribenm]
- DF: oops, i should have been saying "Core WG"
- 19:34:19 [scribenm]
- DF: OK agreed, I'll respond in that manner.
- 19:34:55 [scribenm]
- DF: we expect Recommendation to come out on the 24th
- 19:34:59 [scribenm]
- End of call
- ====================End of Scribed Meeting Minutes===================
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- I see 6 open action items:
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: David Fallside to send WSDL/SOAP 1.2 text to W3C comm team [1]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-25-44
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Mark Nottingham...continue shepherding media type to RFC ASAP [2]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-27-27
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: MarkN, spec editors, W3C staff & chair to complete part2/appendix A and biblio changes per NM's proposal [3]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T18-42-59
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Gudge send email to send email to Jean-Jacques and list closing 434...need end of week latest. [4]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-04-03
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: Editors of abstract feature to publish updates to distApp (title, refs to 3 docs, PASWA features) [5]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-31-13
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- ACTION: chair to respond to Core re. anticipated schedule for "optimisation mech" doc [6]
- 19:38:32 [RRSAgent]
- recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/06/18-xmlprotocol-irc#T19-37-52