- From: Mark Phillips <M8PHILLI@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 18:03:52 +0100
- To: public-soap-jms@w3.org
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 UTC