Based on IRC log
1. Roll Present 15/11 BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham Canon, Herve Ruellan DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle IBM, John Ibbotson IBM, Noah Mendelsohn IBM, David Fallside IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin (scribe) Oracle, Anish Karmarkar SAP AG, Volker Wiechers Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky W3C, Yves Lafon W3C, Carine Bournez Excused BEA Systems, David Orchard Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek Regrets SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel [Scribe] 2. Agenda: [Scribe] Agenda approved as is. [Scribe] 3. Approval of 2003-08-01 telcon minutes [Scribe] Minutes approved with no objection [Scribe] 4. Review of action items [Scribe] 5. Status reports and misc [Scribe] Status of Errata updates [Scribe] ACTION: Carine/Yves to make updates to SOAP 1.2 errata document in time for 2003-10-15 telcon [Scribe] Evaluation of OASIS TC's SOAP Message Security [Scribe] MarcH: There were a couple of things that really stood out. For example, every intermediary has to be an active intermediary. Would be better to encourage forwarding intermediary as more constrained. [Scribe] MarcH: Editorially not up to the bar [Scribe] MarcH: Important issues are highlighted with *** [Scribe] First issue: Use SOAP 1.2 terminology [Scribe] Gudge: Probable pushback will be WSS applies to SOAP 1.1 aswell as SOAP 1.2 [Scribe] Noah: Their spec should still use the correct SOAP 1.2 terms even if it applies to both versions. [Scribe] MarcH: Noah's text sounded good. [Scribe] ACTION: Noah to send text about SOAP 1.2 vs SOAP 1.1 terminology to MarcH (cc xml-dist-app) [Scribe] Next issue: Namespaces [Scribe] No discussion [Scribe] Next issue: End-To-End Message Level Security [Scribe] and following *** 'For clarity' [Scribe] No discussion [Scribe] Next ***: SOAP 1.2 is XML Infoset based [Scribe] Some discussion of whether C14N algorithms ( based on XPath 1.0 data model ) can be mapped to Infoset data model [Scribe] Noah would like to at least provide some idea of what we would like them to fix in this regard [Scribe] First issue is 'did they intend to be infoset based ( abstracted from XML 1.0 serialization ) [Scribe] ? [Scribe] Noah: Could we roll this up into our general comments about using SOAP 1.2 terminology? [Scribe] MarcH: If they can assure themselves there is no issue ( Xpath v infoset ) then we're fine. If they can't then that's a problem. [Scribe] Noah: They may need to put in language around converting Infoset into XPath data model. [Scribe] ACTION: MarcH to reword *** SOAP 1.2 is XML Infoset based to recommend that the OASIS TC take the infoset approach and state the mapping from Infoset to XPath 1.0 ( needed for C14N/DSIG) [Yves] (is in section 3.2) [Scribe] Next ***: [Scribe] 406 "a message MAY have multiple <wsse:Security> header blocks if [Scribe] they are targeted for separate recipients." [Scribe] This harks back to the intermediary issue mentioned earlier [Scribe] Noah: Would be easier if all nodes involved with security acted in a given role [Scribe] MarcH: restriction seems unnecessary [Scribe] Gudge: It's there because of ordering in the WSS processing model [Scribe] Noah: We should at least raise it [Scribe] Keep comment as is [Scribe] Next **: [Scribe] 410 "The <wsse:Security> header block without a specified S:role [Scribe] no discussion [Scribe] Next ***: [Scribe] 450 "All compliant implementations MUST declare which profiles they [Scribe] support [Scribe] Noah: They should refer more directly to SOAP 1.2 [Scribe] Noah: specifically, that 'understanding' is based on the QName of the element and not the content. [Scribe] Accepted [Scribe] Scribe notes that items marked 'No discussion' above were also accepted [Scribe] Next ***: 503 "All compliant implementations MUST be able to process a [Scribe] <wsse:UsernameToken> element." [Scribe] No discussion. Accepted. [Scribe] *** 548 /wsse:BinarySecurityToken/@EncodingType [Scribe] No discussion. Accepted. [Scribe] *** Also, why use qualified names instead of URIs [Scribe] Noah: Should make it clear that if they accept the 548 above, this issue goes away. [Scribe] *** 558 "All compliant implementations MUST be able to process a [Scribe] <wsse:BinarySecurityToken> element." [Scribe] No discussion. Accepted. [Scribe] *** 578 "This section presents the basic principles and framework for [Scribe] using XML-based security tokens." [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] *** Same comment as for BinarySecurityToken re extensibility semantics [Scribe] and requiring all implementations to be able to process the element. [Scribe] Accepted [Scribe] *** Surprised that there is no mention of SOAP Message Normalization [Scribe] (sop12-n11n) here: [Scribe] Noah: May be hard to get them to depend on a non-normative Note [Scribe] ACTION: WG to monitor WSS Oasis TC response to our SOAP12-n11n comment. IF they do add a reference, we may need to move the document along the rec track. [Scribe] *** 832 "Finally, if a sender wishes to sign a message before [Scribe] encryption, [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] *** 855 "If overall message processing is to remain robust, [Scribe] intermediaries must exercise care that their transformations do not [Scribe] affect of a digitally signed component." [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] 9.3.1 Encryption [Scribe] *** The suggested process for performing encryption would only include [Scribe] the data from the original message that was encrypted. [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] *** 1166 "Parts of a SOAP message may be encrypted in such a way that [Scribe] they can be decrypted by an intermediary that is targeted by one of the [Scribe] SOAP headers [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] *** The specification should define the values of the [Scribe] Fault/Reason/Text, Fault/Code/Value and Fault/Code/Subcode/Value EIIs. [Scribe] accepted [Scribe] ACTION: MarcH to put together a single e-mail, with three sections ( one for each spec ) incorporating the changes agreed during the 2003-10-08 call. To post by 2003-10-10. [Scribe] ACTION: WG to review mail from MarcH by 2003-10-14 in order to approve on 2003-10-15 telcon [Scribe] Registration of "application/soap+xml", [Scribe] No news [Scribe] our comments on [Scribe] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0038.html, has WSD WG committed to describe attachments in response to MarcH? [Scribe] No progress [Scribe] Status of publication of SM-N11N as Working Group Note ( [Scribe] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0049.html) [Scribe] Published [Scribe] December 2003, f2f planning (host, exact days) [Scribe] FTF will be at BEA, San Francisco [Scribe] FTF will be 2nd and 3rd December [Scribe] ACTION Chair to notify W3 team calendar of FTF at BEA, San Franciso, 2003-12-02 to 2003-12-03 [Scribe] March 2004, f2f planning (poll results) [Scribe] all responses said they would attend, would attend plenary, would allow observers [Scribe] preference for thurs/Fri meeting [Scribe] ACTION: Chair to notify W3 team of our desire to meet at the March plenary. [Scribe] ACTION: W3C staff to update group home page to include 2003-12 and 2004-03 FTF meetings [Scribe] 6. Attachments (9.40 + 50) [Scribe] -- What do we report to the XML Core WG regarding requirements for XInclude? See thread starting at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2003Sep/0028.html. We postponed this discussion from last week's WG telcon to allow for cogitation in light of our decision to use the XQuery datamodel. [Scribe] Noah: Not convinced the industry has a requirement for a general include mechanism [Scribe] Noah: even if they did, not sure the base64 thing is more widely applicable than our own requirement [Scribe] Noah: Not sure it's worth adding it to XInclude if we're the only ones that need it. [Scribe] ACTION: DavidF to draft response to XML Core re: our lack of requirements on a general XINclude mechanism. Due 2003-10-10 [Scribe] Use cases, see SOAP OS UC & Reqs document [Scribe] UC-6. [Scribe] Streaming [Scribe] DavidF: We decided last week to be more precise about streaming requirements. [Scribe] DavidF: I sent out e-mail to start the discussion. Responses from Hervé and Gudge. [Scribe] Hervé: I found the cases I listed in one e-mail from Noah. There may be others in mail from other people. [Scribe] Herv- Large XML SOAP envelope; [Scribe] - One large attachment; [Scribe] - Several large attachments; [Scribe] - Video + audio stream in parallel; [Scribe] - Satellite transmissin in which there is value in overlapping processing at sender an receiver. [Scribe] DavidF: Can we clarify the video + audio scenario? [Scribe] Noah: There are two sub-use cases. [Scribe] Noah: First is, I have a mpeg and wav. And I'm using SMIL to combine them [Scribe] Noah: Second is that the data is in seperate pieces in the envelope, multiple blobs of video and audio. [Scribe] ACTION: MarkN to write up the two sub-cases of interleaved data: First is, I have a mpeg and wav. And I'm using SMIL to combine them. Second is that the data is in seperate pieces in the envelope, multiple blobs of video and audio. Due 2003-10-10. [Scribe] ACTION: Hervé to send e-mail with new use-case to xml-dist-app. [RRSAgent] I see 12 open action items: [RRSAgent] ACTION: Carine/Yves to make updates to SOAP 1.2 errate document in time for 2003-10-15 telcon [1] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T16-15-24 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Noah to send text about SOAP 1.2 vs SOAP 1.1 terminology to MarcH (cc xml-dist-app) [2] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T16-24-44 [RRSAgent] ACTION: MarcH to reword *** SOAP 1.2 is XML Infoset based to recommend that the OASIS TC take the infoset approach and state the mapping from Infoset to XPath 1.0 ( needed for C14N/DSIG) [3] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T16-41-30 [RRSAgent] ACTION: WG to monitor WSS Oasis TC response to our SOAP12-n11n comment. IF they do add a reference, we may need to move the document along the rec track. [4] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-04-30 [RRSAgent] ACTION: MarcH to put together a single e-mail, with three sections ( one for each spec ) incorporating the changes agreed during the 2003-10-08 call. To post by 2003-10-10. [5] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-11-28 [RRSAgent] ACTION: WG to review mail from MarcH by 2003-10-14 in order to approve on 2003-10-15 telcon [6] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-12-38 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Chair to notify W3 team calendar of FTF at BEA, San Franciso, 2003-12-02 to 2003-12-03 [7] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-16-36 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Chair to notify W3 team of our desire to meet at the March plenary. [8] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-18-50 [RRSAgent] ACTION: W3C staff to update group home page to include 2003-12 and 2004-03 FTF meetings [9] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-19-35 [RRSAgent] ACTION: DavidF to draft response to XML Core re: our lack of requirements on a general XINclude mechanism. Due 2003-10-10 [10] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-23-25 [RRSAgent] ACTION: MarkN to write up the two sub-cases of interleaved data: First is, I have a mpeg and wav. And I'm using SMIL to combine them. Second is that the data is in seperate pieces in the envelope, multiple blobs of video and audio. Due 2003-10-10. [11] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-32-47 [RRSAgent] ACTION: Hervé to send e-mail with new use-case to xml-dist-app. [12] [RRSAgent] recorded in http://www.w3.org/2003/10/08-xmlprotocol-irc#T17-33-48