From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@macromedia.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 14:56:01 -0400 

Here's the status from today's conference call.

Present on the call: Marc, Yves, Chris, Noah, Henrik, Mark, Highland,
Stuart, Glen

1) We spent the majority of the time rewording and tweaking the proposed
text.  We now have a version that, aside from a caveat or two, everyone is
pleased with.  The proposed wording follows.  I will send this out to the WG
momentarily.  I also volunteered to merge this text with Henrik's HTML from
last week, but it now appears I might not get to that until sometime over
the weekend.  If someone else would like to take this on, please let the
group know that you've got the ball.  Otherwise I'll get to it when I can.

2) After coming to consensus on the above, we launched into a discussion of
what our next steps should be as a task force.  Possibilities came up
including taking on the definition of some MEPs, trying to drill on a
crisper definition/scope for "binding", discussion the composition model for
bindings and "binding features" (still an unsatisfactory term), and talking
about how we name/refer to features.

3) It was generally decided that the most important part was the definition
of "binding", after which we could start to approach the other issues.
After some discussion, we were all pretty comfortable with something rather
like the following : (wording is mine, and not the consensus of the TF)

A binding is a specification which describes how to move a SOAP envelope
from one node to another, potentially including any features which are
supported by the combination of the underlying protocol and any "binding
features" in use.

4) A TBTF get-together was suggested during the F2F, timing and location
TBD.