- From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:06:32 -0700
- To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
regrets, in transit over the arctic at the time.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 10:37 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Agenda,6 May 2004 WS Desc telcon
>
>
>
> 0. Dial in information (members only) [.1]:
>
> See the public WG page [.2] for pointers to current documents
> and other
> information, and the private page [.3] for administrative matters.
>
> If you have additions to the agenda, please email them to the WG list
> before the start of the telcon.
>
> [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0002.html
> [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/
> [.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/admin
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Agenda
>
> 1. Assign scribe. Lucky minute taker for this week is one of:
> Jeff Mischkinsky, Asir Vedamuthu, Glen Daniels,
> Roberto Chinnici, Amy Lewis, Erik Ackerman, Adi Sakala,
> Arthur Ryman
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2. Approval of minutes:
> - April 22th [.1]
> - April 29th [.2]
>
> [.1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-00
> 85/22-ws-d
> esc-irc.html
> [.2]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-00
> 88/040429-
> ws-desc-irc.htm
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 3. Review of Action items [.1].
> DONE [.2] 2004-01-08: Pauld to write up examples of schemas for the
> Primer.
> ? 2004-01-28: Philippe and JMarsh will look at the ipr for
> test suite.
> ? 2004-02-12: DaveO to produce a refined proposal for Asynch
> HTTP binding addressing the concerns of folks
> that object to leaving replyTo info out of WSDL.
> ? 2004-04-01: Marsh will get schema tf going.
> ? 2004-04-29: Arthur to write up concerns about XML 1.1
> implications on WSDL 2.0 for potential
> forwarding to XML WG.
> DONE [.3] 2004-04-29: Hugo to redraft DaveO's proposal for extensible
> HTTP
> operations.
> DONE [.4] 2004-04-29: Marsh to add an issue on describing the XML
> version
> of SOAP messages.
> ? 2004-04-29: Umit to work with Anish to create a
> working draft
> on
> media types ready for our May F2F meeting in
> NYC.
> ? 2004-04-29: Part 1 editors to adopt Jacek's "purpose of the
> binding" text, without "interchangeable"
> endpoints,
> and using "confidentiality" (or
> similar) instead
> of TLS.
>
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/#actions
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0007.html
> [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0093.html
> [.4] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x171
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 4. Administrivia
> a. Upcoming FTFs
> - May 19, 9:00 AM - 5:30 PM
> May 20, 8:00 AM - 12:00 PM
> 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM testing task force meeting?
> May 21, 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM
> Hosted by IBM in NYC [.1], registration open [.2]
> - August 2-4 (London)
> Logistics [.3], registration [.4].
> - September 14-16 (Toronto) [.5]
>
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-05-f2f.htm
> [.2] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/34041/WSD0405/
> [.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/04-08-f2f.htm
> [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004Mar/0064.html
> [.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2004May/0000.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 5. Task Force Status.
> a. Media type description
> - Draft of first WD for WG approval by May FTF.
> b. QA & Testing
> - Suggested QA plan [.1]
> - More details from Arthur [.2]
> c. Schema versioning
> - Waiting to hear back from Schema on my draft "charter."
> - Henry's validate-twice write-up [.3]
>
> [.1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/att-00
> 29/QA_Oper
> ational_Checklist.htm
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0037.html
> [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0019.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 6. New Issues. Issues list [.1].
> - Issue 172: Syntax improvement for soap fault bindings
> (Sanjiva) [.2]
>
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0081.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 7. Issue 54: Allow binding to any HTTP method [.1]
> - Hugo's original proposal [.2]
> - DaveO's original proposal [.3]
> - Hugo's combined proposal [.4]
>
> [.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x54
> [.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0042.html
> [.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0055.html
> [.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0093.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 8. HTTP Features review.
> - David's analysis [.1]. Summary:
> - Request-Method already described
> - Request-URI already described
> - HTTP Version probably useful
> - Response Status probably useful
> - Content coding probably useful
> - Transfer Codings (Chunked encoding) probably useful
> - Persistent connections probably not useful
> - Redirection probably useful
> - Authentication probably useful
> - SSL probably useful
> - From probably not useful
> - Caching (Vary, etc.) probably useful
> - Content Negotiation probably useful
> - Host already described
> - Content-Range not useful
> - If-* not useful
> - Max-Forwards not useful
> - Expect not useful
> - Upgrade not useful
> - Via not useful
> - Warning not useful
> - Allow probably not useful
> - Content-Language not useful
> - Content-Location not useful
> - Content-MD5 not useful
> - Date not useful
> - Etag not useful
> - Expires not useful
> - Last-Modified not useful
> - Referrer not useful
> - Retry-After not useful
> - Server, User-Agent probably not useful
> - Partial Content not useful
> - Content-disposition probably not useful
> - PICS, P3P not useful
> - SoapAction already described
> - Cookies probably useful
> - WebDAV probably not useful
> - Delta Encoding ?
>
> [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0083.html
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 9. SOAP 1.2 Binding
> - Review Jean-Jacques' schema [.1, .2] outlining an overall approach
> to the binding.
> - Issue 172: Simplify code/subcode syntax [.3]
> - Sanjiva's proposal [.4]
> - Roberto's amendment [.5]
>
> [.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0295.html
> [.2]
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20
-bindings.
html#_soap_binding_syntax
[.3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x172
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0081.html
[.5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004May/0001.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
HTTP Features - Scheduled for future telcons, dependent on overall
review of HTTP features.
------------------------------------------------------------------
10. Issue 165: Adding HTTPS support [.1]
- Still debating whether to put a specific marker in the binding
re: https (probably delay this; group with other HTTP features.)
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x165
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Issue 147: HTTP binding uses static content-type header [.1]
- "... we can today describe operations using messages
consisting in XHTML or SVG documents. Using the HTTP binding,
these messages will have the "application/xml" mime type
while it would be more appropriate to use more precise mime
types ("application/xhtml+xml" or "image/svg+xml" for
instance). Therefore, it might be good to be able to set the
mime type to use for a given message, at least at the HTTP
binding level ..."
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x147
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Issue 55: Define binding to HTTP headers [.1]
- Do we want such capability?
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x55
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Issue 56: Define means to specify an authentication requirement [.1]
- attempt to clarify commentor's intent
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x56
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0033.html
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Issue 164: Support for HTTP chunking and other HTTP options [.1]
[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/2/06/issues.html#x164
------------------------------------------------------------------
Scheduled for future telcons
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Effort to simplify our spec.
- DavidB [.1] and Jonathan [.2] have provided some data points.
- Arthur's suggestion [.3]
[.1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Mar/0162.html
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0006.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Apr/0028.html
Received on Wednesday, 5 May 2004 18:06:41 UTC