Minutes of 2001-04-18 XMLP WG teleconference held on 18 April 2001

1. Roll Call:

PRESENT 46/38 EXCUSED REGRETS ABSENT

2. Agenda Review.


D.F. - Items 5,6,7,8 are being discussed here in an effort to reach a
publication schedule.
D.F. - Item 5 is submitted with background of items to consider
concerning publication of the Spec, and AM documents.  Would like to
layout items before getting into 5,6,7.
D.F. - The remainder are critical to discussion, and decision will
impact our schedule.
  Item 8 is the resulting decision WG must reach this week on a
publication schedule.
  Item 9 is new business.  NONE RAISED.

3. Approval of Minutes

Apr 4 minutes approved without comment, no edits.  Accepted by WG.
Apr 11 minutes - Editoral suggestion from David F.

4. Review of Action items.

AI1 - to Noah to send to the list?
Noah - I missed last week, but thought that we had agreed to wait
until the larger group met and spoke about what a message path means,
and what an actor means, then continue.
D.F. - The purpose of this action item was just to add text concerning
this issue.
Noah - this discussion has been kicked off under email.
 Issue 41 Degree to which the target of an RPC call is or is not
explicit in SOAP.  I thought that RPC [] was part of a larger issue.
Henrik - is this the Mar. 6th email thread?
Answer, YES.

AI2 - Henrik to update the isue with the email link.
Henrik - I can just use the email.
Noah - yes, it can be moved to the public list, I have no problem with that.

AI3
David Clay - Most of these issues were handled to some degree at the
Apr 4th meeting.  We discussed the definitions of module and handler.
We identified the need to discuss at next meeting the ORDER in which
modules act, etc.  In the AM doc, item 3 says that module and handler
are still being debated.
D.F. - was the glossary updated with the new definitions? [from Apr
4th meeting]
Henrik - The definitions are in the revision of the spec.
Action item can be dropped off.
D. Clay - Most of the relevant issues were resolved Apr 4th, but we
have to take another pass to resolve differences in the Module
Template, and 2nd, to develop a module template for RPC, and a module
template for Digital signing.

AI4-5 Jacek 
Jacek - I reviewed the requirements, and found no requirements which
where not either A. already included in the issues list, or B. to
general to be in scope.
D.F. - it will be left to Jeff to see if he things that there are
"met" issues that he still thinks need to be added to the issue list.
Find out if Jeff still feels this item is valid given your findings.

AI 6 - Waqar, to work on AM issues
Waqar - on 4/4, the group reached a concensus concerning Module and
Handler definitions. Definitions were posted to the public mailing
list.  As there were no comments, we should accept the definitions as
resolution.
D.F. - are those the definitions now in the AM spec?
M. Jones - I believe the definitions were modified to fit those [4/4]
definitions.
Waqar - My second item was also posted to the mailing list, and there
was not much discussion. I propose that the current definitions be
accepted.
D.F - Ok.

AI7 - Concerning the distribution of header/footer blocks - M. Jones
Mark - The most relevant usage case was found to be #21, which has to
do with the incremental parsing and processing of XMLP messages.
Involves the generation of a block serially with other blocks,
involving different kinds of blocks. A workaround for #21 could be
concieved where you just put the serially generated content in a
header, and have a "stub" in the body blocks.  So you would have a
global header and a header with the content.  There could be a problem
with skipping the "big" header to process the little ones, but in any
case it would be possible with the current structure to handle #21
with a workaround.
D.F - So it is captured within 21?
M.J. - The abstract model doesn't distinguish much, but we CAN handle
21 without changing SOAP syntax.
D.F. - So..
M.J. - Can we make it simpler, see how big a contraint is needed to
handle 21, if it is not a big contraint then ok, no problem, if it is,
and we can simplify, then ok we should.
D.F - Henrik, is that item actually in the issue list?
Henrik - Yes
D.F. - Delete it, please.
Henrik - Deleted, not closed?
D.F. - Yes.
Mark - I would like to see it CLOSED
D.F. - Ok, write up a resolution and send to Henrik.

AI8 (ISSUE 4 from PREV minutes)
- Closed.

AI9 (ISSUE 5)
 - Done, per Mark Jones

AI10 (ISSUE 6)
Henrik - I have not followed up on this yet.

AI11 (ISSUE 7)
D.F. - We thought this issue might fall to Stuart, is Stuart not back yet?
Mark J. - I will comment on this later in the AM discussion.
D.F. - Was the clarification done?
Mark j. - Yes.

AI12 (ISSUE 8)
Ray - This was dealt with on Monday, and can be marked closed.
Henrik - to help the issues list, can you refer to the issue and send
this along so that it is clear?
Ray - will do!