XML Protocol
19 Oct 2005
Agenda
See also: IRC log
Attendees
- Present
- Canon, Herve Ruellan
- IBM, Chris Ferris
- IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
- Nokia, Mike Mahan
- Sun Microsystems,Marc Hadley
- SeeBeyond (Sun Microsystems), Pete Wenzel
- W3C, Yves Lafon
- Regrets
- BEA Systems, David Orchard
- Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
- Absent
- Iona Technologies, Suresh Kodichath
- Microsoft Corporation, Mike Vernal
- SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
- Excused
- BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
- Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
- Microsoft Corporation, Doug Purdy
- Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
- Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
- Chair
- Mike Mahan
- Scribe
- Pete Wenzel
2.
Agenda review, scheduling and AOB
AOB: Charter Call for
Review
3.
Approval of minutes:
Oct 12 minutes
postponed
- 2005/09/14: Mike. Review appendix K and/or L from Voice
Browser
- PENDING
- Mike: Just started; pending.
- 2005/10/05: Anish. Respond to his xmlp-comments posting
- copying WSA with early word of likely disposition of
- optional response in HTTP binding
- PENDING -
- No report.
- 2005/10/05: Yves. Create formal issue for optional response in
HTTP binding
- PENDING
- Yves: Still pending
- 2005/10/12: Yves. Track W3C logistics planning for TP
- PENDING
- Yves: Will have more information next week
- 2005/10/12: Herve. Send closing email for 36rec.
- DONE
- 2005/10/12: Herve. Incorporate resolutions for 34/35/36 into
errata
- PENDING
- Herve: still pending
5. SOAP 1.2 PER
specs
- 33rec
- Last week, Yves presented his solution to 33rec and received
approval from all present.
- Did not close, hoping that MarkN and perhaps Noah could
comment.
-
See
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/0005.html
- Noah: Did not review yet, but don't think it's appropriate to
wait for me.
- Mike: Do we want to wait another week anyway, and ping
MarkN?
- Yves: Yes, that would be nice. Should respond to Mark Baker as
well.
- Noah, Chris: Will take a look at it.
- Noah: Not sure MarkB is right, but we should work through the
issues before agreeing to close the issue.
- Chris: Agree.
- Mike will ask MarkN to review as well.
- ACTION: Yves to respond to Mark Baker email
- ACTION: Mike to explicitly ask MarkN for feedback
6. New SOAP MEP/Binding work item
- 1. WSA sent some requirements to XMLP.
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/0000.html
- - MarkN response to clarifying requirements request on behalf
of WSA
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Oct/0008.html
- Chris: They
need something quickly; "Timely Delivery" is first
requirement.
- 2. Editors report
- Chris: Editors haven't yet reached consensus on course of
action. We do agree there's no need for a "SOAP-level" MEP. The
question is, do we need this uber-MEP, or do we talk about
transport-specific MEPs?
- Binding WSDL to transport works fine for HTTP, but not for
protocols that are not req-resp in nature-- BEEP, SIP, SMTP, for
example. Will resume discussion soon. Think this will take a while
to work though.
- Not comfortable with editors proposing solution, as there may
be push-back from other WG members.
- Mike: WG thought editors could propose what they feel is a
consensus opinion, since all viewpoints are represented. A deep
dive is not expected.
- Chris: Would like more validation or direction from WG
members.
- Noah: Not going to advocate a particular answer, but REC Part 1
talks about MEPs in general, that bindings can implement. We have
normative MEPs (req-resp, resp-only); I don't see them as broken,
so don't change all the rules, which are settled. Look at existing
bindings, see if the proposed changes are compatible.
- Mike: Any other input? Suggest editors take another stab at a
proposal, then take straw poll for guidance.
- Chris: Agree to discuss further and report on status next week.
Think Anish will circulate a discussion of the various positions
and issues.
- ACTION: Editors to prepare a status for next week. Perfer this
to first written up as a set of proposal(s) with pros and cons and
sent to dist-app
7. AOB
- Yves: New charter will go out for review next week, for a
minimum of 4 weeks.
- No other business; meeting adjourned at 9:00 US/Pacific.