XMLP

13 Jul 2005

Agenda

See also: IRC log

1. Roll Call
Present: BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham; BEA Systems, David Orchard; Canon, Herve Ruellan; Iona Technologies, Suresh Kodichath; Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin; Nokia, Mike Mahan; Oracle, Anish Karmarkar; SAP AG, Volker Wiechers; SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel; Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley; W3C, Yves Lafon
Regrets: IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
Absent
Excused: Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau; Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer; Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky; Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
Chair: Mike Mahan
Scribe

Martin Gudgin.

2. Agenda Review: No AOB

3. Approval of May 18th Minutes: Approved without objection
4. Action items: Yves ACTION: There may be no need for any action. Simon has now sent mail to the comments list; Gudge's ACTION: Done

5. SOAP 1.2 PER Status

W3C Team pushback on Rec20/22; Yves: Team looked at the issue and decided that the approach was not the right one. Want a proposal like the one made around 1 year ago.
... The document around use of XML Schema 1.0 with 1.1 documents could be considered new info; Yves, please can you post links to your e-mail; Gudge: Don't think we should revisit this. We spent a lot of time on it before and the errata has been public for a year.; Mark: Does this require changes to software; Yves: Not aware of anyone enforcing XML 1.0 requirement; Mark: Doesn't media-type restrict to XML 1.0; Yves: <I missed this>; Marc: We would get interop problems if some stacks support XML 1.1 and some don't; http://www.w3.org/2003/06/REC-soap12-20030624-errata; Mark goes and looks at the errata; <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2003/06/REC-soap12-20030624-errata.html#E19; Thanks Yves!; Mark: Seems like we're trying to create a profile in the spec.; Gudge; But we tried to do better than a profile last year and didn't get anywhere.; Mark: Are the team saying they won't support the move from PER to 2e (paraphrase); Yves: If it doesn't pass the director's publication request we'll have to go back to WD; Gudge: I don't understand what WD means for a PER; <mnot> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3902.html; Mark: I don't feel strongly about the errata language esp. when the media-type forces us to use XML 1.0; Marc: Why does media-type force XML 1.0; Mark: Quotes from rfc3902 section blah subsection blah; Mike: So does the media-type force XML 1.0 or not?; <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/5/02/PER/soap12-part2.html; <Yves> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/5/02/PER/soap12-part2.html#ietf-draft; Marc: So the proposal is that SOAP messages in the abstract can contain characters that can't be serialized as XML 1.0, but the binding restricts to XML 1.0; Anish: Recollection was that the problem was that the schema was non-normative and we didn't want to move because Schema didn't support XML 1.1
... If the schema was non-normative would that allow us to fix the problem.; <Yves> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/NOTE-xml11schema10-20050511/; Anish: Are there any constraints that are specified in the schema that are not specified in the spec; Gudge: No; Mark: We don't use any XML 1.1 features in our schema; Anish: This is more than a validation issue. You can serialize using XML 1.1 but you can't use any new features.; Yves: Only XML 1.1 support is for NEL; Gudge: Everyone was happy with that; Yves: I voted against that resolution at the time but didn't raise a formal objection.; Mark: Couldn't we have a normative schema but not require that messages conform to it
... Doesn't require schema validation; Mike; Are you concluding that this note is of no help?; Mark: It seems to be about how to implement an XML 1.1 aware Schema processor
... Doesn't seem to address our problem.; Mike; Noah is invested in this... We should table discussion until he returns next week; Mark: Schema difficulty seems to be the sticking point; Gudge: Sticking point for me is that we're being asked to reverse a decision we took a year ago; Discussion tabled until next week
6. Potential work item: SOAP one-way MEP and Binding: Mike: Various e-mails on this subject. 'paper' trail is in the agenda; Mike; I'd like to hear opinions from the group; Yves: If we decide to do a note, the charter says we can start work on new bindings so a note would be fine.; Yves; If we want a Rec we need to move to the new patent policy. But the old Recs (SOAP 1.2, MTOM etc) will stay under the CPP.; Mike; I asked the CG why, if the requirement was only for a note, why does XMLP need to do it.; Mike; If this group is going to do it, a Rec seems more sensible; Marc: The async task force is still discusing this. And some of the discussion has centered around whether SOAP MEPs are even needed; Yves: Because async-task force has not finished discussing this request is somewhat preemptive; Anish: this work came from the WSD WG, not the async task force
... WSDL has a one-way MEP and SOAP bindings and they're concerned about demonstrating interop; Some discussion of whether we're being asked to do this work or whether we're being asked what we'd do if we were asked to do this work...; Mike: I think we're being asked to do the work; Mark: It's not clear the async task-force is going to come up with any further output. We have a piece of work that will satisfy WSDesc requirements; Mike; So should we be producing a Note or a Rec?; Mike: Don't think anything in the request from WSDesc pushes us in either direction; Anish: Don't think the WSDEsc WG care. Not sure they can normatively reference a note; Mark: Not sure from a process standpoint either.
... Only makes sense to do it here in XMLP if it's a Rec; Marc; We'll need a small but significant change to our binding to support one-way; Anish: LAst time we discussed this there was pushback against doing this work in XMLP.; Mike: Request was for us to do the work and to let the CG/WSDesc know whether we're publishing a note or a Rec.; Some discussion of how WSDesc schedule will line up with our schedule if we decide to produce a Recommendation; Mike: Yves what would it take to produce a new charter? What would we have to produce by which dates?; <dorchard> that was a concern of wsdesc: what if the xmlp rec happens after wsdl 2.0 goes to rec.; Yves: The current charter allows for work to start. Would need to recharter under new patent policy before first publication; <cferris> me s/ere/here; Mike; If we don't have time/resources to meet WSDesc schedule requirements what's the point of doing the work.; <scribe> ACTION: Yves to check process requirements regarding refering to WDs/LC WDs from further advanced documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01 ]; <scribe> ACTION: Yves to talk to Philipe about whether there needs to be an AC Review for a new charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02 ]; <scribe> ACTION: Yves to come up with proposed new charter language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action03 ]; Mike: Probably want to postpone voting on this until timing WRT WSDesc is clearer; <scribe> ACTION: Mike to check timing WRT WSDesc deliverables. Due for next meeting 2005-7-20. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action04 ]; Dave: WSDesc group was concerned about timing issues in terms of making sure the WSDL one-way MEP could refer to the SOAP one-way MEP.
... WSDesc plan for CR is fairly soon, say October... We'd need a WD to refer to...; Yves: I have an action to investigate this; Mike: Plan to take a vote on this next week (when Noah is back)
7. Issues raised by WSD/Async task force: <Yves> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jun/0107.html; Anish summarises his e-mail; <dorchard> Another way of looking at question #2: Can the binding "switch" the MEP from req-resp to soap-resp?; Marc: I think that the binding currently requires a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response; <anish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Jul/0013.html; <anish> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Jul/0015.html; <marc> http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-soap12-part2-20030624/#tabresstaterecheads indicates that the response can only contain a SOAP message; DaveO: Another question is what's the wording as it stands vs what implementations use...
... I wonder if impls have treated this as MAY contain rather than MUST contain a SOAP message; Chris: In the context of WS-Addressing if you specify a reply-to are you expecting a response?
... Seems to me that while binding goo cares, applications don't actually need to know; DaveO: Question is do SOAP MEPs live close to the application or close to the binding being used; Chris; There are two types of binding, transfer binding and app level binding; various discussion of whether SOAP is one-way or two-way...; daveo: I believe that if in the years since SOAP 1.2 went to Rec there haven't been any issues WRT 'non-compliant' impls then we should update the spec to match the impls; anish; I agree, i was just concerned with what the spec actually says.; <cferris> +1 to daveo's point; Mike; Take more discussion to mailing list; <cferris> i too am concerned with what the spec says

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Mike to check timing WRT WSDesc deliverables. Due for next meeting 2005-7-20. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action04]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to check process requirements regarding refering to WDs/LC WDs from further advanced documents [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to come up with proposed new charter language [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action03]
[NEW] ACTION: Yves to talk to Philipe about whether there needs to be an AC Review for a new charter [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/07/13-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]