See also: IRC log
<trackbot> Date: 08 September 2009
trackbot-ng, start telcon
<trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
<trackbot> Date: 08 September 2009
<eric> Agenda; http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Sep/0004.html
<scribe> Scribe: mphillip
Minutes of 08/18 accepted without alteration
Minutes of 08/25 accepted without alteration
Minutes of 09/01 accepted without alteration
TOPIC 3) Review the agenda
No changes to the agenda
Actions: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/actions/open
Eric: No progress on actions 32, or 68
Derek: No progress on 108
<scribe> No progress - still waiting for approval from Oracle
<eric> Links: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/raised
Eric: 1 new specific issue
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/11
Eric: What to do with the
Request_URI - should it be in both the request and response
messages?
... It is currently an error if missing from the response
message
options are to leave as-is, or to allow it to be omitted from the response message
Phil: Preference for option b - assuming this is included for correlation, then we already have the correlation Id
mphillip: My preference would be to leave in (think this was originally as an addition to correlation info. for additional correlation and routing )
Derek: No strong objection to leaving in the spec.
Amy: +1 - no action is fine
RESOLUTION: All agree that the spec. can stay as-is
Close Issue-11 with no action
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/open
Mark: Issue: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/4
<eric> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jul/0013.html
<eric> Link to spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-soapjms-20090604/#Protocol-2024
<eric> Another link: http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-soapjms-20090604/#Protocol-2021
<eric> Revised proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jul/0030.html
Eric: The wording "using the above rules" is a little ambiguous when taken out of context
Phil: Could omit the final (normative) sentence, and make the paragraph of rules the assertion
<padams> The client MUST create this by taking the supplied URI, leaving the destinationName as-is, and removing the targetService and replyToName query parameters if they are specified. The client SHOULD also remove deliveryMode, jndiConnectionFactoryName, jndiInitialContextFactory, jndiURL, jndiContextParameter, timeToLive, priority properties, and MAY remove other query parameters not explicitly mentioned above (for example client security related properties).
<eric> Specifies the JMS URI of the service. The client MUST create the requestURI by taking
<eric> the supplied URI, leaving the destinationName as-is, and removing the
<eric> targetService and replyToName query parameters if they are specified. The
<eric> client SHOULD also remove deliveryMode, jndiConnectionFactoryName,
<eric> jndiInitialContextFactory, jndiURL, jndiContextParameter, timeToLive,
<eric> priority properties, and MAY remove other query parameters not explicitly
<eric> mentioned above (for example client security related properties). [Protocol-2021]
Phil: Yes, that's fine
<eric> Proposal is to replace 2021 with the following, and remove normative statement indication for 2024: Specifies the JMS URI of the service. The client MUST create the requestURI by taking the supplied URI, leaving the destinationName as-is, and removing the targetService and replyToName query parameters if they are specified. The client SHOULD also remove deliveryMode, jndiConnectionFactoryName, jndiInitialContextFactory, jndiURL, jndiContextParameter, timeToLiv
Proposal is to replace 2021 with the following, and remove normative statement indication for 2024:
The client MUST create the requestURI by taking the supplied URI, leaving the destinationName as-is, and removing the targetService and replyToName query parameters if they are specified. The client SHOULD also remove deliveryMode, jndiConnectionFactoryName, jndiInitialContextFactory, jndiURL, jndiContextParameter, timeToLive, priority properties, and MAY remove other query parameters not explicitly mentioned above (for example client security related properties). [Pr
RESOLUTION: All agree with the proposal as written in the IRC (comment at 17:23:03)
<scribe> ACTION: mark to update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]
<trackbot> Sorry, amibiguous username (more than one match) - mark
<trackbot> Try using a different identifier, such as family name or username (eg. mhapner, mphillip)
<scribe> ACTION: mphillip to update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-109 - Update the specification to reflect the change to Protocol 2021 assertion [on Mark Phillips - due 2009-09-15].
Next issue = 9 : http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/9
<eric> Proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Aug/0025.html
Updated proposed resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Aug/0025.html
Phil: These are the specific changes to make wording more consistent across assertions
Derek: Agreed, this makes sense
Agreed
Amy: Looks good
RESOLUTION: The proposal is accepted for resolving issue 9
<scribe> ACTION: Phil to apply the resolution for Issue-9 [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-soap-jms-minutes.html#action03]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-110 - Apply the resolution for Issue-9 [on Phil Adams - due 2009-09-15].
Issue 8: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/8
Applied resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Aug/0021.html
<padams> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Aug/0018.html
Phil: The linked email contains pointers to the changes made to correct the samples
<eric> Link to C1, rev 1.60: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.60&content-type=text/html&f=h#soap-request-without-attachments
The diff is here: http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html.diff?r1=1.59&r2=1.60&f=h
Phil: The change is to ensure the C2 sample begins with the MIME boundary and to tidy up the introductory wording to the example box
Eric: I think the ending MIME boundary needs a double hyphen at the end
<scribe> ACTION: Eric to investigate the correct syntax for closing the MIME boundary [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-soap-jms-minutes.html#action04]
<trackbot> Created ACTION-111 - Investigate the correct syntax for closing the MIME boundary [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-09-15].
RESOLUTION: All accept the applied resolution for Issue 8
Issue 10: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/10
Applied resolution:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Aug/0024.html
Phil: The proposal was to combine
assertions 2016 and 2017
... This is the part of the spec. which changed:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?rev=1.62&content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#Protocol-2016
RESOLUTION: All approve the resolution for Issue 10
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/wiki/2008-09_FAQ
Eric: Suggest we approach UDDI
experts in our respective organisations to validate the UDDI
section of the FAQ
... Feel free to dive in with more input to FAQ Wiki
... Sections requiring work are requestURI; relationship to
other WS-* specifications, and WS-I Basic Profile
* Discussion: How do we define/describe the WSDL test cases?
Eric: We have discussed this and concluded that we wanted to associate WSDL with our existing test cases
ACTION Eric to Review test cases to identify which ones could have associated WSDL
<trackbot> Created ACTION-112 - Review test cases to identify which ones could have associated WSDL [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-09-15].
Phil: We should avoid structuring the test cases around WSDL to the detriment of tests without WSDL (some vendors will not be supporting WSDL)
11) Implementations - any updates?
out of time - not covered
- none
This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.135 of Date: 2009/03/02 03:52:20 Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/ Guessing input format: RRSAgent_Text_Format (score 1.00) Succeeded: s/this/the requestURI/ Succeeded: s/resolution/resolution for Issue 8/ Found Scribe: mphillip Inferring ScribeNick: mphillip Default Present: +1.919.663.aaaa, alewis, +1.512.286.aabb, padams, +1.650.213.aacc, eric, +1.617.324.aadd, Yves, +962.9.6287.aaee, +1.708.246.aaff, mphillip, Derek Present: +1.919.663.aaaa alewis +1.512.286.aabb padams +1.650.213.aacc eric +1.617.324.aadd Yves +962.9.6287.aaee +1.708.246.aaff mphillip Derek Agenda: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Sep/0004.html Found Date: 08 Sep 2009 Guessing minutes URL: http://www.w3.org/2009/09/08-soap-jms-minutes.html People with action items: eric mark mphillip phil WARNING: Input appears to use implicit continuation lines. You may need the "-implicitContinuations" option.[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]