- From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2002 22:45:04 -0400
- To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
- Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
W3C Web Services Description Working Group Teleconference 7/25/2002
Minutes of Meeting
Present:
David Booth W3C
Allen Brookes Rogue Wave Software
Roberto Chinnici Sun Microsystems
(x:40) Glen Daniels Macromedia
Youenn Fablet Canon
Sandeep Kumar Cisco Systems
Philippe Le Hégaret W3C
Steve Lind AT&T
Jonathan Marsh Chair (Microsoft)
Dale Moberg Cyclone Commerce
Don Mullen Tibco
Arthur Ryman IBM
Waqar Sadiq Electronic Data Systems
Adi Sakala IONA Technologies
Jeffrey Schlimmer Microsoft
Igor Sedukhin Computer Associates
William Stumbo Xerox
Jerry Thrasher Lexmark
William Vambenepe Hewlett-Packard
Sanjiva Weerawarana IBM
Joyce Yang Oracle
Regrets:
Michael Champion Software AG
Laurent De Teneuille L'Echangeur
Tim Finin University of Maryland
Steve Graham Global Grid Forum
Martin Gudgin Microsoft
Tom Jordahl Macromedia
Jacek Kopecky Systinet
Dan Kulp IONA
Kevin Canyang Liu SAP
Michael Mealling Verisign
Jeff Mischkinsky Oracle
Jean-Jacques Moreau Canon
Johan Pauhlsson L'Echangeur
Stefano Pogliani Sun
Jochen Ruetschlin DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
Daniel Schutzer Citigroup
Dave Solo Citigroup
Steve Tuecke Global Grid Forum
Don Wright Lexmark
Prasad Yendluri webMethods, Inc.
Absent:
Mike Ballantyne Electronic Data Systems
Mike Davoren W. W. Grainger
Dietmar Gaertner Software AG
Amelia Lewis Tibco
Michael Mahan Nokia
Pallavi Malu Intel
Mike McHugh W. W. Grainger
Sandra Swearingen U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force
Barbara Zengler DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Agenda
1. Scribe: Igor Sedukhin
-------------------
2. Welcome new member: Amelia Lewis of TIBCO.
-------------------
3. Approval of minutes [3].
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0113.html
Johan Pauhlsson and Jeff Mischkinsky sent late regrets.
JM: minutes approved
-------------------
4. Review of Action items.
PENDING 2002-07-25: GlenD and JJM to write up proposal for handling
MEPs with regard to Soap
PENDING 2002-07-25: GLEN & Sanjiva to write up the comment about MEPs
& features to XMLP group
DONE [4] 2002-07-25: JM to forward minutes to public list PENDING 2002-07-25: GlenD to send DavidB details on hosting November
F2F
PENDING 2002-07-25: JM to decide potential November F2F overlap on Wed
Nov 13 with ChrisF
NONE 2002-07-25: everybody to review the comments and JM to forward
the comments to XMLP
PENDING 2002-07-25: Jeffrey & Gudge to flesh out a proposal for
omitting operation from soap binding
DONE [5] 2002-07-25: Roberto to write proposal for defaults in soap
binding
DONE 2002-07-25: JM to remove Item 19 for 07/25/2002 Conf Call
DONE 2002-07-25: JM try to consolidate Issue 5 & 31 for 07/25/2002
Conf Call
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0120.html
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0105.html
-------------------
5. Ghost messages. Some messages stuck in the ether since the FTF have just arrived [5, 6, 7, 8]. Spooky!
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0109.html
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0110.html
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0111.html
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0112.html
[nothing on record...]
-------------------
6. SOAP 1.2 Last Call [9, 10, 11] call for review [12]. Awaiting text from Glen and/or Sanjiva. Status?
[9] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part0/
[10] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part1/
[11] http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-part2/
[12] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0001.html
[nothing on record...]
-------------------
7. SOAP TF Status? Need more meetings? Is [13] the output? Conclusions so far:
(1) We need to be able to express MEPs in the SOAP binding.
(2) The ability to describe features and MEPs at the abstract level
would be a good thing, but right now we don't know how much effort
it would take to do so.
(3) Feedback to XMLP WG: lack of something (such as a header) to
express the MEP in use. (Glen: perhaps we should say that, for
each binding, there must be a way to identify unambiguously the
MEP in use; of course, for bindings that support just one MEP
that's a no-op).
(4) Currently, there is no well-defined one-way MEP.
[13] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0034.html
JM: postpone and take status from e-mail as nobody from SOAP TF is on the call...
-------------------
8. New Issues
Paul Prescod: http:operation/@location should be optional [14]
[14] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0107.html
[nothing recorded...]
-------------------
9. Proposal: Hoisting SOAP binding attributes [15]
Awaiting amendment from Roberto.
[15] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0058.html
JM: Roberto's amendment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0105.html
Jeffrey: generally ok to Roberto's proposal on SOAP binding attributes
Jeffsch: makes point about Jacek's issue on optional attributes
JM: accept amended Roberto's proposal and include an open issue
-------------------
10. Issue 51: Asymmetry between soap:body and soap:header [16]. Thread starts at [17].
[16] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x51
[17] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0048.html
DonM: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0049.html
JM: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0081.html
JM: postpone issue 51, wait for Kevin to defend it
-------------------
11. Issue 25: Interaction between W3C XML Schema and SOAP Data Model
Gudge's explains at [18], Roberto's options at [19].
[18] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0186.html
[19] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0071.html
JM: not much progress
?: "big issue"
JM: prepare this one for F2F...
sanjiva: has some thoughts on this
sanjiva: wants presentation at F2F
-------------------
12. Issue 5: EncodingStyle
Issue 30: soap:body encodingStyle
Dietmar's soaptf proposal for encoding and use attributes. [20]
Arthur's recommendations. [21, 22]
[20] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2002Jul/0016.html
[21] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0178.html
[22] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jun/0178.html
JM: how different are the proposals?
arthur: will read through and post a note to the list
JM: non controversial issue, continue on it
-------------------
13. Issue 18: Default for transport of <soap:binding> [23]. Jeffrey's proposal at [24].
[23] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/issues/wsd-issues.html#x18
[24] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0122.html
Jeffrey: reiterating that WSDL spec is inconsistent about the transport
Jeffrey: proposes to settle on HTTP 1.0 or 1.1 in the spec
Jeffrey: transport attribute is ambiguous with regard to binding
[scribe could hardly follow the discussion here...]
sanjiva: concerned with transport attribute on the binding. There is redundant information because URL implies the HTTP transport already. The only difference is HTTP 1.1 or 1.0
Jeffrey: there may be other binding that may need transport attribute
sanjiva: copy binding style...
Jeffrey: attribute has same value
sanjiva: inherit binding namespace and change transport value
JM: keep transport attribute, not mandatory, should we include version?
sanjiva: keep attribute, does not like that URI implies transport either
sanjiva: ok to close the issue
JM: redundant info is ok for it is easy to access
roberto: what to do for HTTPS
adi: URL to https: and transport attribute to HTTP
JM: is the attribute really redundant then?
JM: issue is beyond unclarity of the spec
JM: close the issue 18, have another one for the attribute itself
ACTION: Don Mullen to write up an issue on transport attribute
JM: issue 18 resolution: transport is mandatory
Glen: is the transport attribute same as in SOAP?
Glen: are the URIs for transport same, can we use same URIs?
JM: this is different issue, someone take an action...
JM: these issues are editorial clarifications, then look at the other issues after...
ACTION: Glen write up an issue on transport URIs compliance with SOAP
JM: what's issue 28 then, is it same as Glen's
sanjiva: yes it looks same...
jeffrey: not the value of transport attribute, is it?
Glen: these URIs are not necessarily namespaces, may be considered as identifying tags
jeffrey: are these general or the ones from SOAP spec?
Glen: need a place in WSDL to relate to SOAP 1.2 transports
roberto: SOAP binding precludes HTTPS
Glen: need an HHTPS binding or include security attribute in HTTP binding
Glen: follow SOAP 1.2 to support SOAP over SSL...
Glen: we need to do something about HHTPS
JM: CG has to consider who does HTTPS binding
Glen: have a binding for HTTPS and give it a URI
roberto: agrees
sanjiva: plain it for F2F, may be
JM: ad-hoc discussion on the "bridge", appoint task force...
JM: plan for august 1st informal call then
JM: what's the scope of that discussion?
JM: don't close issue 28
JM: next week: issue 28 and HTTPS
sanjiva: start next week, continue at F2F though
Glen: start with transport
JM: it's an official vacation, keep the discussion informal
Glen: small TF can generate proposals
JM: proposal for bindings compatibility with SOAP 1.2 then?
Glen: ok
Don: agrees
JM: form a TF: Glen, Sanjiva, Don, anyone else on august 1st
JM: topic: SOAP binding mov to SOAP 1.2
Philippe: first TF teleconf, next week, same bridge, same time
-------------------
14. Proposal for Abstract Model [25, 26]. Status?
[25] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.am.xml
[26] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl12/wsdl12.am.html
ACTION: Sanjiva and Gudge to work on the strategy on combining the AM
JM: get editorial changes into the draft
Sajniva: need to work on the proposal doc yet
JM: editors should incorporate the material, then go by the issues
Sanjiva: published draft has a model, but it its not exactly compatible with AM
JM: does anyone object incorporating Gudge's proposal into the WD?
JM: no objections
ACTION: Sanjiva to incorporate Gudge's proposal into the WD
-------------------
15. Sanjiva's binding proposal [27].
[27] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002Jul/0117.html
Sanjiva: (1) serviceTypes is a group of portTypes (2) tackle the address concept at the WSDL level
Sanjiva: reiterating the proposal
Jacek: does not see what has to be fixed in regards to bindings in WSDL 1.1.
JM: issue has to be discussed more...
JM: use august to prepare for F2F...
[meeting is over...]
SCRIBE END 2002-07-25 @ 16:31:34 by Igor Sedukhin
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2002 23:01:11 UTC