XMLP minutes

17 Aug 2005

Agenda

1. Roll Call

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

2. Agenda Review , Announcements, and call for AOB

mikem: Martin Gudge has retired from XMLP, Mike Vernal has replaced him as primary for Microsoft

3. Approval of Minutes

mikem: Minutes of August 3th approved

mikem: Minutes of August 10th approved

4. Action items

2005/08/02 Yves

Send a proposal to resolve rec33.

PENDING

2005/08/02 Dave

Respond to Anish's proposed response regarding below ATF Issue.

PENDING (may become moot)

5. XMLP Requests

1. Voice Browser WG

See: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0019.htm

mikem: Voice Browser WG wants XMLP to review bindings of their infoset to HTTP

mikem: anyone familiar ? volunteers ?

mikem: Yves, is it mandatory, or optional, to review ?

yves: we can decline if we decide that no useful comment can be made

yves: one comment might be to recommend that they use SOAP

mikem: is there a timeframe?

yves: Voice Browser group is on holidays during august

mikem: action to WG to consider reviewing either appendix K or L or both, we will bring it up in 3 weeks time

2. ATF Issue: Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in the response?

Proposed response: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0015.htm

anish: explains the history on this. MarcH's has a proposal to say what needs to be changed to send an empty reponse

chris: notes that MarcH's proposal would not accomodate the likes of use of HTTP response for ReliableMessaging ack.

marcH: concurs

anish: notes that he had similar concerns were raised before

anish(IRC): here is what HTTP spec says about 202: "The entity returned with this response SHOULD include an indication of the request's current status and either a pointer to a status monitor or some estimate of when the user can expect the request to be fulfilled."

noah: agrees with ChrisF and Anish. MEP purpose is to say exactly what is expected.

chris: discusses whether application level MEP or the underlying mechanics (plumbing) should handle this

anish: one of the problems that exists, as i see it is, there are too many patterns: transport-level MEPs, SOAP MEPs, WSDL MEPs, Application MEPs. They are all layered over each other. With optionality introduced, there are all kinds of interactions between them and causes a problem with mappings.

noah: SOAP processing MEP should say how to process 202

davido: SOAP spec. has 2 different state machines for 2 MEPs, while http binding has one state to deal with it.

noah: the real test for the MEPs is in using it with SOAP intermediates

ACTION: Chris to continue discussion, and send concerns about 202 and different MEP evels in the ML

6. New SOAP MEP/Binding work item

Topic: Charter has no pushback from WSD

mikem: No pushback. Yves believes schedule is aggressive

yves: Like to extend schedule by 6 months, keeping in view of all the above discussions and the work to be done

mikem: Group to decide whether to take all these work. Yves to recommend a change for

this

Topic: Scoping of work

mikem: Considering 5 possible options, as listed in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0018.html.

mikem: would like the editors to move on if possible. asks for inputs from the group

chris: if binding is indeed broken, then fix it

davido: whether we want a new one, or change the description format style, we have good

starting points on both. Decide which style to use, not much editors can do without it

noah: Prefer to establish realistic goals, and give it to editors and iterate.

mikem: what are the realistic goals ? Are they WSD's req., dave's suggestion for a simpler description format

noah: the description style is not meeting them, no problem with that, but the charter doesn't say that this is goal. WSD, WSA requirements are needed as goals. Improving style is not a goal.

mikem: DavidO says it is necessary

noah: that doesn't mean that it is a goal. goal is WSD/WSA requirements, but if editors decide to change style, that is fine but is not to be considered a goal

pete: what are the goals

mikem: no formal requirements from WSA, only from WSD

chris: it should not be open ended

anish: WSA doesn;t have consensus in the requirements

noah: faults are an important thing to consider, and mostly overlooked

davido: agreed. Also should decide upon the style. Not much typing work to

do for the editors till the decision is made

mikem: what holds the decision to choose style for one-way work ?

davido: not yet clear on what work is to be done. not much editorial work to be

done, most of this is done in the draft.

chris: we dont necessarily know the requirements, other than WSD requirements.

anish: suggest to request to WSA to get requirements

anish: style discussions need not wait

noah: editors should decide, WG should help the editors. editors should go ahead, while we get more formal requirements.

davido: no problem with that. still concerned with doing something and throw it out.

scribe: finally, the following actions items have been created to go ahead with this

ACTION: editors to summarize the current requirements for the one way MEP

ACTION: Mike to ask WSA for requirements

mikem: might readjust the timing of call, and no calls on August 24th and 31st!.