SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference -- 06 Jul 2010

<trackbot> Date: 06 July 2010

<mphillip> Scribe: Mark

Appointment of the scribe

<mphillip> Mark

<eric> Scribe: mphillip

Approval of prior meeting minutes

No objections to approving the minutes

Review the agenda

No objections

Review action items

Eric - no progress on actions

Peter - no progress

Mark, 185 done, 188 still pending

close action-185

<trackbot> ACTION-185 Change the namespace to http://www.w3.org/2010/soapjms closed

Derek: 187 - reviewing the spec...
... In Binding spec section 2.2.3 we say that targetService MUST appear in requestURI but there is no corresponding fault or specified behaviour

<eric> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/ws/soapjms/soapjms.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#binding-message-props

Mark: The receiver may not know that the targetService was specified and so may not me able to throw a fault

Eric: Agreed, this may be untestable - can test the positive but can't test the negative

Peter: There is an analagy with SOAP/HTTP if there is no match for soapAction and I have seen that handled in several ways

<eric> SOAP Action in SOAP 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383528

Derek: Will raise this as an issue for later discussion

close action-187

<trackbot> ACTION-187 Review the spec. looking for other items that will need to change - e.g. editorial notes / nits closed

<scribe> ACTION: Derek to raise an issue regarding targetService and the missing fault [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/06-soap-jms-minutes.html#action01]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-191 - Raise an issue regarding targetService and the missing fault [on Derek Rokicki - due 2010-07-13].

Namespace discussion

<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jul/0002.html

Mark: For action 185
... Describes changes for namespace

RESOLUTION: Changes approved, issue 39 can be closed

URI Scheme

<eric> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2010Jul/0001.html

Eric: Reads note from IETF reviewer - outling options
... Provisional registration makes some sense
... URN prefix is an option

Consensus on call is that it is not the ideal option

Mark: Does provisional URI expire?

Eric: No, but it could be replaced either by a provisional or permanent URI
... Provisional *should* block the registration of another "jms" URI unless the new one was demonstrably better
... and IETF *should* look for backward compatibility before replacing a provisional URI
... Can push to turn a provisional URI into a permanent URI but it could take some time

Mark: What's the provisional process?

<eric> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-merrick-jms-uri-07#section-9

We would change the status in section 9 of our document and re-submit as a provisional draft

Mark: A colleague in IBM has a list of all the existing SOAP/JMS formats - perhaps we can use that to demonstrate this needs standardisation

<scribe> ACTION: mark to send list of known JMS URI formats to the SOAP/JMS list [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2010/07/06-soap-jms-minutes.html#action02]

<trackbot> Created ACTION-192 - Send list of known JMS URI formats to the SOAP/JMS list [on Mark Phillips - due 2010-07-13].

Eric: We would prefer to keep a URI rather than a URN so I will follow up on the procedure for provisional registration and find out how we would move forward to permanent

action eric to Investigate provisional uri process and how we would move forward after that

<trackbot> Created ACTION-193 - Investigate provisional uri process and how we would move forward after that [on Eric Johnson - due 2010-07-13].

Moving to PR (via CR)

Eric: We will need to prepare a document detailing the differences since the last CR, so we will discuss that work next week

AOB

None

- DRAFT -

SOAP-JMS Binding Working Group Teleconference

06 Jul 2010

Attendees

Contents