XMLP WG telcon minutes, 22 September 2004

1. Roll
Present 12/9
BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
IBM, David Fallside
IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
IBM, John Ibbotson
Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
Nokia, Michael Mahan (scribe)
Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
W3C, Yves Lafon

SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing
BEA Systems, David Orchard
Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky

Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
Canon, Herve Ruellan
IONA Technologies, Suresh Kodichath

2. Agenda Review
Any other items
  Noah - can David update us on XMLP WG schedule on calls and events?
  David - yes we can do that

3. Approval of minutes
Minutes of 17 September 2004 approved without objection

4. Action Items
Edits to list of items published in agenda
 - Mike done
 - Gudge's issues 
   - 505
   - 501
   - Nilo
 - Anish - send out a email regarding rep header is not on AI list and is done

Regarding pending AIs:
Mark - has no substantive SOAP-related comments to Part 1 and has added
web-human@w3.org as contact point in RFC
Yves - Editors: Resolve CR issue 500 and send closing email to originator  -
Yves/Gudge will help with this by EOW
Yves: Rep editors: Resolve CR issue 504 and send closing email to originator.
Will be done this week
Issue 505 is for Nilo, in response to Gudge
Editors: Change ref from infoset 1st edition to infoset 2nd edition - linked to
this week's resolution.

Mark: WSDL Part 1 Review - reviewed, nothing to report against SOAP spec in Part 1
Mike: goes over the Part2 review
  Noah : could you clarify relationship between abstract MEPs and SOAP bindings MEPs, 
  David: so instead of illustrating - do clarification
  Fault Prop rules - is an example of abstract layering . When SOAP is used, please
        clarify the relationship.
  Noah: an important aspect of the clarification is the disposition of faults.
  Summary - recompose review into 3 parts
     - Editorial from Part1 
     - clarifying the relationship between MEPs - especially faults 
     - other Editorial issues 
Action to Mike to reconstruct the WSDL Part 2 comments according to above. Send
response to the WSDL last call list

5. Status Reports
Media type resolution - application/soap+xml" and "application/soap_xop+xml
Mark: we have 2 days to review the draft as edited by IANA rfc editor
Mark : posts proposed doc for publication, there are some diffs - minor stuff
Mark:  some changes to email address + some others
Mark: wants to get back to IANA today
Mark: changes are all editorial, lets all look at this today, and we can close the item
Mark: goes over the changes, all editorial
Mark: security section changes
Noah: finds a nit with a name
Group: no other comments
Mark: will tell them ready to go ahead and publich rfc3902 (the number is still
unofficial), probably in about a month

-- XMLP/WSD Task Force and WSDL Media Type document (Anish)
Anish: did section by section review of the MT document - it still has editorial issues
Amish: WSDL wants to finish editorial review then send to XMLP, then do informal
LC, then publish joint WG note
David: when can we expect the document?
Anish: probably in a week
David: who will inform XMLP, you or Jonathan?
Anish: someone on the WSD WG will do so

-- Primer review
 All comments will be reviewed at next week's telecon
 Nilo cannot attend, but will come to special meeting iff there are sufficient comments 
 All should look at latest version (the one in the agenda) This one has the MTOM/XOP changes

6. Candidate Recommendation
-- Test status report, implementation page is now available <http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/4/08/implementation.html>

  - MTOM/XOP tests are complete
  - RRSHB tests are not yet done
 Anish: outlines 3 tests to run
  Gudge:  schema has a resource attribute on GetResourceRepresentation but your 
example message has the URI as the content of the element. I've assumed the schema
is correct.
  Anish - agrees on the attribute approach. The schema is correct.
 Gudge: interpreting Test 2 as a single test with MTOM used for both
input and output messages. When you get XML, you should emit XML, if you get MTOM,
you should emit MTOM
  Anish: agrees
  David: summarizes the two points
    1. Anish to post back, schema is correct.
    2. We will only use test 2a and omit the proposed test 2b

Chair message: once we have endpoints that run these 3 tests, 
we will be close to wrapping up CR. The other items required for CR closure are
500, 501, 505 resolutions.
Proposed Recommendation is next. We need to have
1 more review of our suite of specs before requesting PR. The tests may be completed
next week, and we expect closure of 4 issues next 
week. Then we can start the review the following week. 
Gudge: can we not start the MTOM/XOP review this week?
Yves: 502 will change RRSHD spec
Gudge: Yeah, but MTOM/XOP are more done
David: Prefer to have all specs done and then review them en masse
David: Will we get all 5xx issues done by this week?
Yves: Yes
David: Then this is a moot issue
David: PR will have its own boilerplate, that has to be factored
David: So we can start review by next Monday. How much time to review?
Marc: A week is reasonable
Gudge: I need only 10 minutes, given there have been very few changes
David: A week then

500, XOP, (editorial) broken references section, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x500
<http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html>. Editors to resolve and close.
Will be fixed by EOW, 
  Yves: also change of infoset
501, Rep, i18n issues - encoding and language, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x501
<http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html>. Has been closed by WG.
  Gudge: closed, no action, email sent
502, Rep, i18n issues - URI handling, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x502
<http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html>. Has been closed by WG
although Yves prefers Noah's text: should we accept it
(see, <http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Sep/0007.html>)?
   David: We closed this issue on last week's call but Noah sent revised text.
   Group is fine with Noah's text
   David: we will use Noah's modified text, 502 is closed *again*. Yves - please
         send more closing email to originator

505, MTOM, (editorial) example HTTP message, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-cr-issues.html#x505
   Has been closed by WG.
  Waiting for Nilo, example
  Gudge: there is also a change to MTOM

David: In sum, we expect new versions of the specs by the end of this week,
and we will review them next week. Next week's call will be short. During the
telcon on October 6, I expect we will vote on whether or not to submit the docs
for PR.

David: asked WG whether they want to see PR versions of docs with boilerplate etc.
The WG did not indicate that they need to see the fional boilerplate versions for
their PR review.
David took and action to generate PR boilerplate text in time for the Oct 6 telecon

7. SOAP 1.2 Recommendation maintenance
-- Issues and proposed resolutions
o Issue Rec25, http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x25
"media type registration". Issue text describes a couple of ways to proceed. This
issue is pending IANA registration of media type.

David: Should we take path 1 or path 2 in the recommended action
Mark: Path 1 - is better
David: There is then a TOC change. Put this in errata, then fold in when the
document is reved.
David - WG agrees to remove appendix and then add reference to the new rfc
No objection to close Rec Issue 25 
  - remove appendix A
  - add reference to rfc3902 in the bibliography
   - Mark will send closing email to originator