17:00:08 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #soap-jms
17:00:08 <RRSAgent> logging to http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-irc
17:00:10 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:00:10 <Zakim> Zakim has joined #soap-jms
17:00:12 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:00:12 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start now
17:00:13 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:00:13 <trackbot> Date: 30 November 2010
17:00:32 <padams> Zakim, who is here?
17:00:32 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has not yet started, padams
17:00:33 <Zakim> On IRC I see RRSAgent, padams, mphillip, trackbot, Yves
17:01:09 <eric> eric has joined #soap-jms
17:01:20 <peaston> peaston has joined #soap-jms
17:01:22 <alewis> alewis has joined #soap-jms
17:01:50 <Derek> Derek has joined #SOAP-JMS
17:01:52 <Zakim> +Mark
17:02:01 <mphillip> trackbot, start telcon
17:02:03 <trackbot> RRSAgent, make logs public
17:02:05 <trackbot> Zakim, this will be SJMS
17:02:05 <Zakim> ok, trackbot; I see WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM scheduled to start 2 minutes ago
17:02:06 <trackbot> Meeting: SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference
17:02:06 <trackbot> Date: 30 November 2010
17:03:13 <eric> Zakim, aabb is me
17:03:13 <Zakim> +eric; got it
17:03:55 <mphillip> TOPIC: Appointment of the scribe
17:04:01 <mphillip> Scribe: Mark
17:04:20 <mphillip> Chair: Eric
17:04:29 <mphillip> TOPIC: Approval of prior meeting minutes
17:04:34 <mphillip> http://www.w3.org/2010/11/16-soap-jms-minutes.html
17:05:22 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: Minutes are approved 
17:05:30 <mphillip> TOPIC: Review the agenda
17:06:17 <mphillip> No changes to agenda 
17:06:20 <mphillip> TOPIC: Administrative items
17:06:44 <mphillip> Eric: The workgroup charter was scheduled to expire this December
17:07:29 <mphillip> Eric: That isn't a problem as long as the WG is seen to be making progress, however Yves has extended our charter to the middle of next year
17:07:45 <mphillip> TOPIC: Review action items
17:08:00 <mphillip> Eric: No progress on 146, or 202
17:08:20 <mphillip> Derek: Started looking at 222 - still in progress
17:08:37 <mphillip> Phil: 223 still pending
17:09:21 <mphillip> Peter: 225 (testcase mods arising from action 219) - now done
17:09:25 <mphillip> close action-225
17:09:25 <trackbot> ACTION-225 Apply Action-219 changes to test spec closed
17:09:54 <mphillip> Phil: ACTION-227 is done - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0035.html
17:10:20 <mphillip> close action-227
17:10:20 <trackbot> ACTION-227 Raise issue on the SOAP/JMS namespace distinction between SOAP 1.1 and 1.2 and present proposal closed
17:10:30 <mphillip> Eric: 228 is done
17:10:35 <mphillip> close action-228
17:10:35 <trackbot> ACTION-228 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed
17:11:10 <mphillip> Phil: 229 - is done - see:  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0036.html 
17:11:25 <mphillip> close action-229
17:11:25 <trackbot> ACTION-229 Come up with a proposal for Issue-65 closed
17:11:48 <mphillip> TOPIC: Moving to PR (via CR? & LC)
17:14:26 <mphillip> Mark: Starting to look at whether IBM's WebSphere Message Broker can be tested against CXF (an independent implementation from WebSphere App Server)
17:15:18 <mphillip> Phil: What about pending chages e.g. Issue 65?
17:15:33 <mphillip> Eric: For the purposes of moving to PR, implementations must conform to last published draft.
17:15:49 <mphillip> TOPIC: Specification Issues:
17:15:59 <mphillip> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/67
17:17:45 <mphillip> Phil: JAX-WS provides a value that can be used by an endpoint developer in the Binding type annotation to specify the SOAP version and the transport.  Our Binding spec only defines a single namespace, and so is insufficient to denote both SOAP version(1.1 or 1.2)  and transport (JMS)
17:18:14 <mphillip> Phil: Proposal is to define 2 values - one for SOAP 1.1 and the other for SOAP 1.2
17:19:08 <mphillip> See propoalin ISSUE-67 following the text "Regarding specific changes to the binding spec to resolve this issue"...
17:19:41 <mphillip> s/propoalin/proposal in/
17:21:07 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: no objections - ISSUE-67 is opened 
17:26:33 <mphillip> Mark: Do we need to update namespace table etc. in spec.
17:27:07 <mphillip> Phil: No, should keep everything else the same - these are new namespace values 
17:28:03 <mphillip> Eric: *Could* add these in as additional normative values in spec. but can't see any concrete use cases for that 
17:28:42 <mphillip> Eric: Suggest dropping the last paragraph in the proposal (which begins "Ideally, these values would be defined by the JAX-WS specification")
17:29:54 <mphillip> Eric: ...and perhaps amend the previous paragraph to be more generalised - so that it doesn't just apply to JAX-WS
17:31:14 <mphillip> Phil: Perhaps we could replace the final paragraph with some text that acknowledges that there may be some other technologies that would find these values useful
17:32:45 <mphillip> Eric: That might be overkill unless we can think of concrete examples
17:33:18 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: The proposal is approved with the final paragraph removed 
17:34:09 <mphillip> action mark to apply the changes for ISSUE-67
17:34:09 <trackbot> Created ACTION-230 - Apply the changes for ISSUE-67 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].
17:34:27 <mphillip> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/68
17:37:42 <mphillip> Eric: Public comments from the mailing list regarding the use of the API for Setting JMS Header properties 
17:37:54 <mphillip> Mark: Good spot - been in the spec for a long time
17:37:57 <mphillip> Phil: +1
17:38:13 <mphillip> RESOLUTION: The ISSUE-68 is opened  
17:39:00 <mphillip> action : mark to come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68
17:39:00 <trackbot> Created ACTION-231 - Come up with a concrete proposal to resolve issue 68 [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-12-07].
17:39:24 <mphillip> TOPIC: Open Issues
17:39:52 <mphillip> Eric: Changed spec. to point at revision 10 of URI scheme ( http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/27 )
17:40:03 <mphillip> http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/soapjms/tracker/issues/65 
17:40:25 <mphillip> Eric's proposal:
17:40:28 <eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0033.html
17:40:59 <eric> Issues to discuss: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Nov/0032.html
17:47:32 <mphillip> Discussion: No way to find out what encodings a service provider supports.
17:48:28 <mphillip> Eric: HTTP can determine what encodings a web server Accepts but this proposal does not include an equivalent
17:50:17 <mphillip> Amy: We could simplfiy by saying that content-encoding can only be applied to single part messages
17:51:11 <mphillip> Eric: Yes - that's a slightly different issue - do we wnat to allow this property for multi-part messages?
17:51:18 <mphillip> s/wnat/want/
17:55:23 <mphillip> Amy: In 2.2.3 we would add a bullet point that says soapjms:contentEncoding must not be used for multi-part messages
17:58:05 <mphillip> Phil: If we adopt this as a normative change it will require changes to existing implementations - at a minimum, to check for this new property, and throw the appropriate SOAP fault if encoding is not supported
17:59:20 <alewis> * Restriction: the property is not defined for composite messages (messages with a Content-Type of "multipart" or "message"), only for discrete messages (Content-Type "application" or "text", for this specification).
17:59:26 <mphillip> Eric: we *could* soften the requirement in the final bullet in 2.2.3 to "SHOULD" so that existing implementations don't change
17:59:55 <mphillip> Eric: If we keep the hard requirement we would need a new test to send a bogus encoding and ensure we get a fault back
18:00:38 <mphillip> Phil: We shoud make it a MUST if we'e going to put it in at all
18:01:14 <mphillip> Peter: Agree with the discussion - still pondering SHOULD vs. MUST for the fault
18:01:41 <mphillip> Mark: If we add a new fault we will also need to add it to the schema
18:02:15 <mphillip> Eric: If anyone cares strongly about the MUST then please make a counter proposal
18:03:12 <Zakim> -padams
18:03:13 <Zakim> -Derek
18:03:15 <Zakim> - +1.781.280.aacc
18:03:17 <Zakim> -alewis
18:03:19 <Zakim> -eric
18:03:19 <mphillip> Eric: to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal
18:03:25 <Zakim> -Mark
18:03:27 <Zakim> WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
18:03:28 <Zakim> Attendees were padams, +1.919.663.aaaa, Derek, Mark, +1.209.474.aabb, +1.781.280.aacc, alewis, eric
18:03:38 <mphillip> action: Eric to revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal
18:03:38 <trackbot> Created ACTION-232 - Revise the proposal with Amy's addition and the fault in the proposal [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-12-07].
18:04:08 <mphillip> rrsagent, make minutes
18:04:08 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate http://www.w3.org/2010/11/30-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
18:04:14 <padams> padams has left #soap-jms
18:04:17 <mphillip> rrsagent, make log public
18:04:33 <eric> eric has left #soap-jms
18:07:22 <mphillip> mphillip has left #soap-jms
19:03:44 <Zakim> Zakim has left #soap-jms