W3C XML Protocol Working Group teleconference, 17 September 2002

1. Roll call

• BEA Systems, Mark Nottingham
• BEA Systems, David Orchard
• Canon, Herve Ruellan
• IBM, David Fallside
• IBM, Noah Mendelsohn
• IBM, John Ibbotson
• IONA Technologies, Seumas Soltysik (Scribe)
• Oracle, Anish Karmarkar
• SAP AG, Volker Wiechers
• SeeBeyond, Pete Wenzel
• Sun Microsystems, Marc Hadley
• Sun Microsystems, Tony Graham
• Systinet (IDOOX), Jacek Kopecky
• W3C, Carine Bournez

• Canon, Jean-Jacques Moreau
• IONA Technologies, Mike Greenberg
• Oracle, Jeff Mischkinsky
• Systinet (IDOOX), Miroslav Simek
• W3C, Yves Lafon

• DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Mario Jeckle
• Ericsson, Nilo Mitra
• Microsoft Corporation, Martin Gudgin
• Microsoft Corporation, Jeff Schlimmer
• SAP AG, Gerd Hoelzing

• DaimlerChrysler R. & Tech, Andreas Riegg

2. Agenda Review and Additional Suggested Agenda Items

------------------------------------------------------

F2F this fall
    *Should consider another F2F for this Fall
    *Time late November/early December
    *Discussion of venue to be handled via email
    
David F-Carine to keep recommendation doc up to date

Update Normalization Document Proposal(Marc Hadley)
     *Intermediary could add new header element
     *If normalization header element empty then remove element
     *Action Item-prepare new version of Normalization doc(By COB 9/19/2003)


	

3. Approval of September 10 minutes

-----------------------------------
    *Minutes are approved without objection


        

4. Review of Pending Action Items

---------------------------------
    A)Action items complete except for the following
        *MarkN & DavidF-Confirm on the exact name of the content type (ietf vs vnd) (Pending)
        *Anish to reformulate UC-4 as a requirement. (Pending)


        

5. Status reports

-----------------
    A)Registration of media type: MarkN reports it is now on IESG's discussion agenda

    B)Comments on PASWA doc 
        *Action Item-MarcH to kick off thread to discuss Phillipe Hegaret's email on binary in XML Schema

    C)Oasis WS Security Tech Committee(published 3 specs)
        *Looking for somebody to review specs from WS Security TC that use SOAP extensions to provide SOAP message integrity and authentication
        *Action Item-Marc Hadley volunteers to review docs by 3 October 2003


        

6. Attachments

--------------

    A) SOAP OS Reqs doc
        *comments (remove WD formatting etc) are in process of being handled

    B) Report on XQDMTF from Noah
        *Task Force looked at query data model. Draft MTOM using terminology of data model. Task force met to consider proposal of using XQDMTF as part of MTOM doc.
        *Two decision made 
            1)Decided to publically review draft. 
            2)Concensus among task force members to adopt XQDMTF
        *Discussion-
            Mark N-Postpone decision. Will this confuse MTOM users?
            Noah-Downside SOAP described by infoset, therefore there is confusion between infoset and XQDMTF. 
            Mark N-Leaves door open for discussing other aspects of data model beyond Base64

    C) XInclude
        *Discussion
            Mark-on track for what needs to be said to XML Core WG
            David F-note timetable is to send comments after next telcon

    D) Use Cases
    UC-2
        *Discussion
            Jack-Applicaton wishes to send uri which receiver will de-reference. Sender can bundle resource with message in addition to sending URI.
            Noah-Not happy with language associated with WWW not being accessible. Include examples of where packaging resource with message are useful.
            Mark N-Agree with Noah. 
            David F-Action Item-Jack reformulate language associated with sending resource with message in addition to URI sent by sender. 
            David F-Record of reformulation of UC2 is now in the IRC log.
            David F-Reminder that decision still needs to be made about publishing UC-2.

    UC-6
        MarkN - Will we support this use case in MTOM?
        *Discussion
            Jack-This is a useful use case for HTTP binding. Should be limited to large data sets.
            Mark N-Any issues/implications other than buffer management? This is highly implementation specific.
            Noah-A little shy about specifying this to implementations. More research into buffer management issues before recommending anything. Should we set up a task force or not do anything on this issue?
            David F-Decision made to not have task forces for use cases.
            David F-Action Item-Start a thread to start a reformulated version of UC6(Jack)
            David F-More action needed on the item.

    UC-7
        *Discussion
            WG decides to drop UC-7 because it already exists as a requirement.

    UC-8
        *Discussion
            Mark N-This is subsumed by other use cases.
            WG decides to drop UC-8

    Action Item-DavidF send email consolidating all Use Cases (and resolve any internal references amongst UC's)