XMLP minutes
28 September 2005
Reminder ,
Agenda
See also: IRC log
1. Roll Call
- Present
- Canon, Herve
Ruellan
- IBM, Chris
Ferris
- Iona Technologies, Suresh
Kodichath
- Nokia, Mike
Mahan
- Oracle, Anish
Karmarkar
- SeeBeyond, Pete
Wenzel
- W3C, Yves Lafon
- Regrets
- IBM, Noah
Mendelsohn
- Sun Microsystems, Marc
Hadley
- Absent
- BEA Systems, David
Orchard
- BEA Systems, Mark
Nottingham
- 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
- Yves
2. Agenda Review , Announcements, and call for AOB
- Lets talk about a possible F2F at
end of meeting.
3. Approval of Minutes
- 17 Aug:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Sep/att-0002/2005-08-17-minutes.html
- APPROVED
- 14 Sept:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Sep/0007.html
- APPROVED
4. Action items
- Action Items: http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/Admin/#pending
- 2005/08/10: Yves
- Send a proposal to resolve issue rec33
- PENDING Should have a contribution in 2 weeks time, by
10/12
- 005/08/17: Yves
- Send out a revised timeline for the new XMLP charter draft
- DONE See last AI for details
- 2005/08/17: Editors
- Summarize the current requirements for the oneway MEP
- DONE
- Anish: the editors did have
a call, concerns about uber-MEP or one-way only
- It is possible to restrict
at the WSDL level the MEP in use (like one way) even if the one
describer is the uber-MEPs also application, WSDL MEP and SOAP MEPs
are differents.
- We discused about HTTP and
BEEP back channels and how to deal with those
possibilities
- Anish to work on some WSDL
examples
- 2005/08/17:
- Mike Ask WSA for requirements
- DONE
- 2005/09/14:
- Marc Find rec33 related email thread
- DONE
- 2005/09/14: Mike
- Review appendix K and/or L from Voice Browser
- PENDING
- 2005/09/14: Yves
- Check with Hugo wrt timeline and dependencies withWSA and
WSD
- CLOSE
- Anish: dependency with WSD might be relaxed or pushback,
allowing our work to appear after WSDL CR
- Mike Discussion about moving the timeline by 3 monthes
- Mike: Yves suggests we move back LC,CR, and REC deliverables
back 3 months
- Mike: is there any comments on pushing back the timeline as
proposed?
- .... No Response
- ACTION: Mike to revise the timeline
for the charter and email to Yves
8. XOP Issues
- 34rec start-info:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0001.html
- Herve's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Sep/0007.html
- Approved without dissent
- ACTION: Herve to send closing email for issue 34rec
- 35rec Use absolute URIs for action:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0002.html
- Herve's proposal:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Sep/0007.html
- Approved without dissent
- ACTION: Herve to send closing email for issue 35rec
- NEW Issue: Possible defect:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0004.html
- Yves needs to add this as 36rec
- proposal is to add clarifying text to ensure that the EII must
only hace character II in its children
- this would apply both to XOP and MTOM
- ACTION: Yves to create 36rec from
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0004.html
- ACTION: Herve to propose clarifying text for 36rec
5. XMLP Requests
- Voice Browser See AI
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0019.htm
- l
- ATF Issue: Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in
the
- response? - Postponed, missed needed members.
- Tracking progress:
- Anish, private list:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2005Aug/0015.html
- Dist-app:
- Anish:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0011.html
- Anish:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0012.html
- - clarifies that other specs can modify the SOAP HTTP
binding
- Marc:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0014.html
- - detailed changes
- Anish:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0018.html
- - OK, but more perhaps entity body in a 202 response. BP has
no
- entity body.
6. SOAP 1.2 PER specs
- ***Postponed, missing needed members
- 33rec http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-rec-issues.html#x33
- (Behavior of Requesting node on a 3xx response in the SOAP HTTP
Binding)
- Anish:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0000.html
- Noah:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xmlp-comments/2005Aug/0003.html
- 1) This may be nothing, errata, or too large to qualify as
errata
- 2) RFC2616 - using a somewhat more elaborate means to complete
the
- POST,
- not changing the overall intended method to GET."
- Yves:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0008.html
- This is a modeling issue.
- Anish:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0009.html
- If our binding relied on the underlying transport (HTTP) after
the
- 1st
- request and said do what the HTTP spec says then we would be in
a
- place
- where we could say -- it is still a response to POST, and that
more
- elaborate means are being used to complete the POST. But
we
- specifically
- say that it goes back to the Init state with a new value of
the
- property
- "http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/mep/ImmediateDestination".
..I'm
- beginning
- to wonder if we have over specified things in our binding,
rather
- than saying
- do what the underlying transport say you must do.
- M Baker:
-
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2005Aug/0010.html
- If it were me (and I expect I said this while the issue was
under
- discussion), I'd simply terminate the state machine after the
first
- response and expose the response metadata.
- ATF Issue: Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require a SOAP env in
the
- response? See XMLP Requests, above.
7. New SOAP MEP/Binding work item
- ***See Yves and Editors summary in AIs
- 1) Charter language - deliverables, milestones
- 2) Scoping of work - report from editors
8. AOB
- Mike: F2F planning
- Likely will need to meet F2F. I want to explore our options
given the W3C's F2F planning rules
- Would like to consider meeting at the TP, as Yves is
suggesting
- ACTION: Mike to talk to the CG wrt scheduling and
potential f2f at the TechPlenary