XMLP minutes

3 Aug 2005

1. Roll Call

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

2. Agenda Review and call for AOB

No AOB identified at beginning of call.. However, we did discussion schedule in a couple spots. These discussions are moved to AOB section at end of minutes

3.. Approval of July 27 Minutes

Bad link in agenda, should be: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0001.html

Approval deferred until next meeting.

4. Action items

Yves Send revised charter to member list for discussion – DONE

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Jul/0025.html for charter link and discussion.]

Yves Check the PP implication of changing the old REC – DONE

Yves: Every new feature added to the old REC would force it to be republished under the new patent policy. So we are constrained to modifications that contain no new material.

Noah: There is a general sense that we should not change the existing REC in a way that would trigger the new patent policy. Perhaps our charter should allow us to do that, if necessary.

Yves: In current charter text, placement of new MEP work item is an issue.

Noah: We should be reluctant to make substantive changes to existing REC.

Mike Send notification to the WS CG about the upcoming work on the one way MEP - DONE

Anish Write a draft message on the ATF's issue 1 - PENDING

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x33

Anish Should finish tomorrow.

Anish Send ATF's issue 2 to xmlp-comment - DONE

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0000.html

5. Charter Discussion

ML discussion starts here:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Jul/0025.html

Summary of discussion so far:

Anish: Charter talks only about one-way MEP, but says nothing of the binding. WSD requirement was for both (SOAP HTTP binding).

There have been several proposals for async request/response over HTTP.

Issue is to capture the Async Task Force requirement correctly in the charter, not just a one-way MEP HTTP binding.

So 2 points – 1) charter only talks about MEPS and not bindings and 2) do we talk about req from ATF, or from those supplied by WSD only?

Noah: Noticed that charter specifies one-way MEP, but some of our solutions were different from one-way.

Is one-way MEP the requirement, or just a best-guess as to the form of a solution?

more important that we separate the requirements from the solutions we might end up with

reason we were being asked for oneway MEP is because another group thought that was the best solution to their problem

we should say what's really required and separate that from the solutions we might develop

See if DaveO's proposal is a conceivable solution under the charter.

Not advocating a particulat answer now – but would like to make sure the charter enables all of the reasonable solutions we might consider

Anish: Async TF & WSA WG could not agree on the requirements,

but WSD WG did. - they wanted a oneway MEP and binding

Noah: DaveO's proposed solution wouldn't meet WSD WG's needs?

Anish: Correct. They want one-way only, not req/resp with optional response; that's what Async TF wanted. Not pushing back on trying to include all these requirements in the charter.

Noah: What if we offered WSD WG a profilable req/resp MEP? The charter currently rules out having this discussion. It should allow it.

DaveO, ChrisF: Concur.

Mike: Propose modifying charter.

amenable to modifying the charter accordingly
we should include WSD WG's requirements as one of the use cases

MarcH: We should ask WSD WG if this meets their needs.

Mike:redraft and get some ack from them that it satisfies their requirements

Noah: Charter should say something like, fulfill requirement as specified by WSD WG. This implies checking with WSD to make sure they didn't overspecify.

DaveO they didn't say that they need this and only this (one way MEP)

Mike: lets rewrite some of the charter and pass this by the wsd

buncha +1s

MM: wording about bindings is pretty explicit in WSD's request. Volunteer to propose language?

DaveO: Will take a stab at it. CC WSG list? Prefer to iterate and reach consensus here first.

ACTION: DaveO to draft charter revision language based on this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]

Mike: Will bring it to Jonathan's attention.

Mike: Would issue of new document vs. modified REC be separate from this wording?

Yves: Yes.

Mike: Is current language sufficient?

Noah: As drafted, we are not necessarily closing off options, so it's ok.

ACTION: MikeM to communicate charter revisions to WSD WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02 ]

6. SOAP one-way MEP and Binding

Mike: Anish, Chris and DaveO have all volunteered to serve as editors

some administrative issues such as separate meeting and mailinglist, etc.

could just use subject convention like [EDITOR]... would like the traffic to be archived

Mike: the methodology is too set the editors up with the input documents, and let them alert the WG to issues as they craft a first draft.

I would like this editorial effort to begin in parallel to charter drafting.

7. SOAP 1.2 PER specs Transition Status

Yves: will be a directors call for WS-A... might impact our decision

Mike: when is this call?

Yves: Monday

Yves: We will know more about its potential impact on us after that.

Yves: Suggest that REC issue 33 be rolled into PER document.

8. AOB

Pete: discuss aug telcon schedule?

Mike: summarizes for people booted off call
I will be out 31st and possibly 24th or 17^th We meeting next week Aug 10

MarkN: Concall schedule; current start time of 8:30. Historically it had been 9:00. Can we move it back to the original time?

Mike: Propose starting at 9:00 Pacific, for 60 minutes. If we need more time, we can start at 8:30. All agreed.

MarkN: Any F2F in near future?

Mike: Yes, but not ready to plan for it yet, until we see what we've got to do.

Noah: Note advance notice requirements. Likely can't meet until Oct/Nov.

<Yves> http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/policies.html#GeneralMeetings

<Yves> Meeting announcement : 8 weeks

DaveO: Hope we can do without a F2F.

Mike: By mid-Sept we should be able to gauge necessity.

Noah: usually a long shot to call things on short notice

Yves: Re PER transition status, call with Director re WS-A & XML 1.1 is

on Monday.

Mike: Re August concall schedule, will be meeting next week (8/10).

Either 17th or 24th will be cancelled, as well as 31st.

adjourned

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: DaveO to draft charter revision language based on this discussion [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01]
[NEW] ACTION: MikeM to communicate charter revisions to WSD WG [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/08/03-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]