IRC log of ws-arch on 2002-08-08

Timestamps are in UTC.

Present

AT&T Steve Monetti (alt)

ChevronTexaco Roger Cutler

Contivo Dave Hollander

CrossWeave, Inc. Timothy Jones

Exodus/Digital Island Joseph Hui

France Telecom Shishir Garg

IBM Heather Kreger

IONA Eric Newcomer

Progress Colleen Evans

SeeBeyond Technology Corp Ugo Corda

Software AG Michael Champion

Sun Microsystems, Inc. Doug Bunting

Sun Microsystems, Inc. Mark Hapner

W3C David Booth

[mchampion]

DaveO: What is an architectural principle? That needs to be resolved ...

DaveO: SOAP processing model is valid architectural principle; Mark thinks of connectors and dataflows

DaveO: SOAP processing model doesn't play a role in REST. We need to figure out whether SOAP model is in or out of arch

DaveH: This is something that the arch itself should answer; it's a question we must resolve

Eric: Not sure why SOAP could possibly not be "architecture"

DaveO: Mark is working from Fielding's POV; he describes a web architecture with nodes, connectors, dataflow

no treatment of processing within node

Eric: We can't accept this limitation

MChampion: Nobody will defend Mark's Position

DaveH: Clearly architecture has to define processing assumptions

Mike: Does the work need to be revisited?

DaveO: Wants to make sure that the harvesting includes the SOAP processing model

Colleen: Mark Jones harvesting of SOAP does include processing model

DaveH: Consensus is that moving forward on architecture should incorporate SOAP processing

ACTION: Chairs should raise this issue in September

[DaveH]

Consensus of this *informal* meeting...hence the need for the full discussion in Sept.

Note, informal meetings in August can not reach full consensus. They can only advise on likely directions to take in preparing drafts.

[mchampion]

Moving to security topic

Refer to Joe HUi's message of 31 July "WS SEc Group Scoping"

Issue: How important is it for the W3C to maintain control of this?

Joe: We need to focus on the requirements that WE think are important

Eric: Good to refer to other WG's output, but our priority has to be to make sure that we have quality control

DaveH: Very important to take direct responsibility in such an important area

DaveH: Bridging gaps between their arch and ours will be hard

Eric: Perhaps we can do that via liason rather than reproducing effort

Joe: Liason should be to reduce duplication of effort

DaveO: Still wrestling with what we should do ... we don't have much ability to influcence OASIS

Eric: They work by open process too; we can coordinate openly.

Eric: Focus is on liason, not authority

We'll still need to translate result into our prose

DaveO: Small detail -- glossary definitions; what if they end up with different definitions that we have?

Need to avoid NIH syndrome

Eric: defer to OASIS until proven otherwise. There will be mappings ...

DaveO: So what do WE want to do?

Eric: We liase with them ...

DaveH: Should we spawn a WG?

DaveO: At F2F people were adamant that we needed framework first, this seems to have dissipated

DaveO: Framework is not in OASIS charter ... confused as to where it will come from if we defer to OASIS

Joe: Importance of framework still there;

Joe: recalls that we wanted WG just because of priority

Roger: Does Oassis see a framework as one of their tasks?

Joe: apparently not ...

Daveo: OASIS charter is clearly pointed at specific areas, building on WS-Security proposal

No reason to think that OASIS is building a general framework

MikeC: Any reason to fear that their implicit framework is incompatible with our direction?

Joe: OASIS seems to want to combine SOAP and SAML

[Kreger]

i remember that too

[mchampion]

Roger: Recalls that we agreed to not spin off architecture WGs, only WGs to develop specs

DaveO: has different recollection;

DaveH: Do we want to revisit the past decision rather than trying to recollect them? What should we do knowning what we know now

Roger: Previously felt burning need to get security framework on the table so we could charter security WG. OASIS have started th WG, so issue is moot

Others endorsed Rogers view

Eric: We should consider framework in context of our architectural work

ACTION: Chairs should figure out what we need to do to reassess the security WG situation in September

Roger: Is there anything we could do in August to provide input to the OASIS TC?

Roger: not binding decisions, just material pulled together in good faith

Joe: We need to get our act together first, pin down requirements

DaveO: At F2F, people were interested in end to end security, which is not in the OASIS charter

[DaveO]

I have to go now.. Regrets for the next two weeks.

[mchampion]

Eric: Will work with IONA's rep to OASIS TC to help figure out how we could work together best

Joe: Reminds us that Hal Lockhart is the liason to OASIS

DaveH: Reminds us that liason is a "loaded

word in W3C-ese. We need to be careful

MikeC: What about IP implications of all this?

MarkB: OASIS TC is apparently operating in RF mode. This is a critical issue to Sun.

[dbooth]

[Meeting adjourned]

[Zakim]

WS_ArchWG()3:30PM has ended