W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > June 2009

Minutes: 2009-06-09

From: Mark Phillips <M8PHILLI@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:03:52 +0100
To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF62C0A41.4D67519A-ON802575D0.005DB108-802575D0.005DBCE6@uk.ibm.com>

Minutes here:  http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-soap-jms-minutes.html
...but the W3C site appears to be having some problems so I have pasted the
IRC transcript below.

There were two new actions:

ACTION-86 - Ask Yves what the best way to record / store the FAQ? [on Eric
Johnson - due 2009-06-16].
ACTION-87 - Find out if Axis 2 has an implementation of the SOAP/JMS
Binding spec. [on Phil Adams - due 2009-06-16].

Regards
Mark
(17:04:21) Phil: Zakim, aaaa is Phil
(17:04:21) Zakim: +Phil; got it
(17:05:26) eric: agenda:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-soap-jms/2009Jun/0004.html
(17:06:32) mphillip: Scribe: mphillip
(17:07:06) mphillip: TOPIC: Minutes
(17:07:18) mphillip: Eric: No issues with previous minutes
(17:07:42) mphillip: TOPIC: Agenda
(17:07:51) mphillip: All: No issues with agenda
(17:07:55) mphillip: TOPIC: Actions
(17:08:05) mphillip: No progress on actions
(17:08:20) mphillip: TOPIC: URI specification
(17:09:51) mphillip: Mark: IBM IETF rep has confiormed that the trust200902
option is the one to go for
(17:10:03) mphillip: Mark: But still waiting for legal approval from IBM
(17:11:48) mphillip: Eric: TIBCO Counsel commented that if there is any
content which predates 2008/11 then we need to use the option that says
"may include text developed under the older rules and thus this document is
still using the older rules"
(17:12:54) mphillip: Eric: TIBCO Counsel is still determining what the
legal position is
(17:14:22) Zakim: + +1.919.663.aacc
(17:14:28) mphillip: Phil: Would this hold up the JMS Binding specification

(17:14:45) mphillip: Phil: (If we don't have an RFC describing the JMS
URI )
(17:14:49) mphillip: +Amy
(17:14:49) ***Zakim wonders where Amy is
(17:14:52) alewis [alewis@69.34.111.7] entered the room.
(17:15:04) eric: Zakim, aacc is alewis
(17:15:04) Zakim: +alewis; got it
(17:15:40) mphillip: Eric: We could possibly publish the URI as a W3C note,
but that would be less than ideal
(17:16:18) mphillip: Eric: ...or include in binding specification itself
(17:17:05) mphillip: Phil: There would be a danger that if we don't have an
RFC someone else might come up with their own JMS URI scheme
(17:17:56) mphillip: Eric: Agree - there are many URI schemes which have
not been registered with the IETF
(17:18:56) mphillip: TOPIC: Specification status
(17:19:20) mphillip: Eric We successfully transitioned to Candidate Rec
(17:20:42) mphillip: Eric: We have an outstanding action to update the FAQ
(17:21:03) mphillip: Eric: Where would we keep that FAQ - currently on W3C
Wiki
(17:21:28) mphillip: Action Eric to ask Yves what the best way to record /
store the FAQ?
(17:21:28) ***trackbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
(17:21:28) trackbot: Created ACTION-86 - Ask Yves what the best way to
record / store the FAQ? [on Eric Johnson - due 2009-06-16].
(17:21:37) mphillip: TOPIC: Testing
(17:21:46) mphillip: Eric: Nothing new here
(17:21:59) mphillip: Phil: We need to figure out our testing strategy
(17:23:21) mphillip: Phil: What kind of testing do we need to do to satisfy
the W3C requirements to move to full recommendation
(17:24:34) mphillip: Eric: Need two implementations of the specification,
and need to be able to demonstrate that to W3C
(17:25:29) mphillip: Phil: WebSphere app. server has implemented parts of
the spec., but does not support it all (not the WSDL section for example)
(17:27:00) mphillip: Phil: IBM could develop tests which match the test
cases, but what would we need to do to demonstrate this. Is it enough to
just assert that a product passes these tests.
(17:27:31) mphillip: Eric: Need to ask Yves about this
(17:29:45) mphillip: Phil: Java EE has a compliance test suite - but
obviously nothing so comprehensive here
(17:30:09) mphillip: TOPIC: 8. Implementations
(17:30:47) mphillip: Eric: We have mentioned the WebSphere implementation.
Plans for TIBCO implementation can't be disclosed
(17:31:18) mphillip: Phil: There is an Axis2 implementation - not sure if
this is according to current (or even recent) version of the spec. Will
check
(17:31:52) mphillip: ACTION: Phil to Find out if Axis 2 has an
implementation of the SOAP/JMS Binding spec.
(17:31:52) ***trackbot noticed an ACTION. Trying to create it.
(17:31:52) ***RRSAgent records action 1
(17:31:53) trackbot: Created ACTION-87 - Find out if Axis 2 has an
implementation of the SOAP/JMS Binding spec. [on Phil Adams - due
2009-06-16].
(17:32:56) mphillip: Mark: Axis2 would be an ideal place to make the test
suite and test cases public
(17:33:38) mphillip: Eric: Glen was working in this area we should follow
up with him to see if WSO2 are involved
(17:33:55) mphillip: Phil: I will check with IBM committers first
(17:34:04) mphillip: TOPIC: 9. AOB
(17:34:10) mphillip: None
(17:34:46) Zakim: -Phil:
(17:34:46) Zakim: -Eric:
(17:34:46) Zakim: - +0196270aabb
(17:34:48) Zakim: WS_SOAP-JM()12:00PM has ended
(17:34:50) mphillip: Next Meeting: Same time next week - we will attempt to
get closure on the legal issues
(17:34:52) Zakim: Attendees were Eric, +1.512.286.aaaa, +0196270aabb, Phil,
+1.919.663.aacc, alewis
(17:34:53) alewis left the room (quit: Quit: alewis).
(17:34:56) Phil left the room (quit: Quit: ChatZilla 0.9.84 [Firefox
3.0.10/2009042316]).
(17:35:12) mphillip: rrsagent, generate minutes
(17:35:12) RRSAgent: I have made the request to generate
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
(17:38:44) mphillip: rrsagent, generate minutes
(17:38:45) RRSAgent: I have made the request to generate
http://www.w3.org/2009/06/09-soap-jms-minutes.html mphillip
(17:39:10) eric left the room.
Received on Tuesday, 9 June 2009 17:04:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT