W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 20 November 2002

1. Roll call

Present 23/20 Excused Regrets Absent

2. Agenda Review and AOB

 
Discussion of issue 389 will be added to agenda #7.

3. Approval of 11/06/02 Telcon and F2F Minutes

 
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#schedule 
 
The 11/06/02 telecon minutes are approved as posted. The Day 1 F2F minutes are approved as posted.  David Fallside will get the Day F2F minutes by the end of the week,

4. Review action items

 
http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending 
 
The following action items remain open as of this telecon: 
 
2002/10/30: David Fallside 
Match latest spec against requirement Section 5 
David Fallside noted that he needed to see complete resolution of Issue 355 before proceeding with action. 
 
2002/10/30: Paul Denning 
Match latest spec against requirement Section 4.4, 4.5,... 
 
2002/10/30:  Editors 
Clean up language about return value and outbound edge in Section 4.2.2  
Noah confirmed that issue 389 is a separate issue from this issue.  This action relates to RPC in Chapter 4.  Action was originated from Day 2 of F2F meeting.  
 
2002/11/06: Jean-Jacques 
Get the pieces in place so that we are ready to start the IANA registration of the 'application/soap+xml' media type, include a cover letter to the IANA  
 
2002/11/20: Yves Lafon 
Get confirmation from DIME authors that we can reuse the specification 
Yves Lafon noted that the W3C management has instructed XMLP to go ahead and use the document.  Ask permission from editors  
 
2002/11/20:  Henrik 
Check the IRC log of Day 2 F2F and trace the origin of the Editors 2.4.4 (2002/10/30) action

5. Status Reports

 
Primer:  Document still needs to be updated to add text on the relay attribute, modules, and so on.  Action: Nilo Mitra will have a draft of the Primer available by Monday, 11/25. 
 
Specification:  The specifications are up-to-date with the decisions made thus far.  There are some changes with regards to issue 389.  Thereafter, the editors will generate a clean copy. 
 
Test Collection:  Document still needs to be updated.  Action:  Anish Karmarkar will have an updated document available by Monday, 11/25. 
 
Attachment Feature:  Status discussion deferred. 
 
PAG/IPR:  Per David Fallside, all members of the XMLP WG who are in good standing have provided their complete IPR statement.  IPR statements made by members in good standing will be published on the XMLP website a few hours from now.  At the moment, we are waiting for one minor clarification on a patent issue from Microsoft.  David emphasized that a PAG is not necessary in this case.  Under the terms of the CPP, a PAG is triggered if the one or more current members have not made a complete IPR statement.  Those members who are not in good standing (i.e., members who have left or are not currently in the XMLP WG), we are waiting for some reply or clarifications.  We are reminding those members who left the working group that deferred providing IPR statements to do soon as possible.  With regards to WebMethods, we remind them as part of their obligation to the W3C and XMLP WG to disclose any intellectual property that they know of.  Fallside shares the concerns of the members of the working group in regard possible patent claims from organisations outside the immediate WG. 
 
Action:  Yves Lafon will publish IPR summary page.  When updated IPR page is posted, an e-mail notification will be sent to the XMLP WG with clarifications on the final outcome of the IPR investigation.   
 
Implementation Tracking: 
[http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/03/soap1.2implementation.html] 
 
Jacek Kopecky provided a status of the last Implementers meeting.  No update from Anish Karmarkar on recycling of assertion numbers.  At the implementer's telcon, Microsoft presented their report about feature coverage by SOAPBuilders tests.  Only a few features are not covered or unclear.  Feature 33 will possibly be removed from the table.   
 
Action:  David Fallside will update Feature List by end of the week. 
 
Per Henrik, in matching the various SOAPBuilders tests with the Implementation Table, they found that there is coverage for all but seven assertions for which we have no test in the SoapBuilders tests.  Per Marc Baker, the XMLP WG has worked on the SOAPBuilders test as part of the Test Collections and Assertions (i.e., Converting them from SOAP 1.1 to SOAP 1.2).  Why can't we use the work that was already done by the WG? 
 
The next Implementers telecon is Monday, 11/25/02 at 9:00 AM (PST). 
 
Requirements coverage by spec, preliminary reports (all due): 
 
Colleen reported that the only gap was that the requirement basically states that we will directly support a one-way messaging exchange.  Fallside points out that there are two options, namely, (1) do nothing, and (2) support of one-way MEP which is not actually in the binding but exist in the spec.  
 
Glen Daniels suggested that if someone is interested on this issue enough to take on the task to actually put together the MEP regardless of where its gets place.  In a straw poll, 4 people agree to pursue this issue, and 4 people agreed not to take this further in the current spec.  To reach a conclusion in the face of no clear consensus, the XMLP Chair decided not to pursue this further in the working group and in the spec.

6. Docs, what shall we do with our 'supporting' documents?

 
-- Abstract Model. What to do with the current Editor's Copy? 
[http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/14-am/xmlp-am.html] 
 
There were no objections to the Chair's proposal to publish the Editor's Copy of the Abstract Model as a Working Draft and put it in the "Working Drafts No Longer in Development", http://www.w3.org/TR/#WD. 
 
Action:  Find a mechanism for implementing accepted resolution for the Abstract Model document (David Fallside) 
 
Action:  Colleen will review list of issues that were tabled previously and propose appropriate resolutions in time for next week's telecon. 
 
-- The "application/soap+xml" Media Type document and IANA application. The spec says:  This document references "The 'application/soap+xml' media type" Internet Draft [SOAP MediaType  http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/10/LC/soap12-part1.html#soap-media-type] which defines the "application/soap+xml" media type. The XML Protocol Working Group intends to use [SOAP MediaType] in an IANA [http://www.iana.org/] application to register the "application/soap+xml" media type. The Working Group also intends to incorporate the technical content of [SOAP MediaType] into a near future version of SOAP Version 1.2  Part 2, and to maintain that content as part of the SOAP specification.  We are awaiting materials from Jean-Jacques (Discussion postponed) 
 
-- Requirements and Usage Scenarios (Discussion postponed) 
 
6. List Call Issues [http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-lc-issues] 
 
-- Allowed values of array size (Closed) 
 
-- MEP assumptions regarding intermediaries 
Hnerik's proposal: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0005.html.  Noah is willing to go with Henrik's proposal but would like to note his concerns.  Per Fallside, discussion on Henrik's proposal will take place via e-mail. 
 
-- 385, 367, 368, 369, conformance issues 
[http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0000.html]  
 
Fallside's proposal [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Nov/0044.html] was accepted.  Editors will incorporate resolution to issues 367, 368 and 369.  Though content is acceptable, Noah pointed out that some "wordsmithing" is necessary. 
 
Action:  Send closing text for 367, 368 and 369 to XMLP comments (Fallside) 
Action:  Coordinate response with Camillo with respect to resolution of issue 385 (Fallside) 
 
The remaining agenda items were not discussed due to time constraints. 
 
Meeting adjourned.