See also: IRC log
Present: Abbie Barbir, Chris Ferris, Dave Orchard, Dave Hollander, David Booth, Doug Bunting, Don Mullen, Eric Newcomer, Frank McCabe, Gerald Edgar, Hugo Haas, Katia_Sycara, Mark Jones, Mike Champion, Mike Mahan, Paul Denning, Roger Cutler,Shishir, Garg, Ugo Corda, Zulah Eckert
Regrets: Colleen Evans, Geoff Arnold, Hao He, Hugo Haas, Igor Sedukhin, Martin Chapman, Mike Brumbelow, Scott Vortmann, Srinivas Padrangi, Yin Leng Husband
Chair: Mike Champion
Scribe: Eric Newcomer
<ericn> Will be a telcon next week, either Dave H.
or Dave B. will chair
... Review of minutes
... Review of action items
<ericn> ACTION: Chris to summarize
WS-Policy spec for the list
... ACTION: Ugo to summarize the WS-Policy meeting
... This also closes the action item from the F2F
... Action item still open for chairs to discuss WSD and WSA
relationship at coordination meeting
... Actions still pending for editors to align with new WSD
terminology
... Action still pending for Eric to close Issue 21
... ACTION: Editors to check Mark J's text following Scottsdale F2F
for inclusion
... ACTION: Tom to open issues based on Mike's draft response to an
issue raised by Mark Baker
... Mike still to work with Eric an getting the visibility text
into the document
<chrisf> [email protected]
<ericn> Hugo's action to create glossary mailing list is closed.
<Roger> [email protected]
<chrisf> ACTION: Editors will
reconcile terminology used with WSDL [PENDING]
... ACTION: Eric will close issue 21 [PENDING]
... ACTION: Chairs to raise properties-features coordination
between WSD and WSA on WSCG [PENDING]
... ACTION: MikeC will work with Eric to make sure that Dave O's
visibility resolution text is in the document [PENDING]
<dbooth> Poll: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Mar/0074.html
<ericn> Please review David Booth's email from
Tuesday (as posted to IRC) to the public list and follow the
instructions for voting
... Mark J. says it looks likely XMLP will soon submit PR draft of
SOAP 1.2 for decision to issue as a recommendation
<mitrepauld> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/infoset_whitepaper.asp
<ericn> Mark J. reports on the discussion around
attachments at XMLP, including alternative proposals
... Mike: Architectural issue around how attachments might be
described in WSDL
... Discussion about potential architectural issues with respect to
proposed use of infoset in the binary "attachnemts" alternative
... Attachments spec not being bundled with SOAP 1.2, not going out
at the same time
... DavidB mentions potential architectural issue with regard to
WSD around MEPs
... Input/Output patterns do not capture the idea of relationship
between the input and output the way that request/response does
... If WSDL adopts input/output but SOAP uses MEP the WSA may have
to decide how to reconcile terminology and modeling at the port
type level
<mitrepauld> see R2303 at http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-01/BasicProfile-1.0-WGAD.html#WSDLPORTTYPES
<ericn> ACTION: Don Mullen to send
pointer to task force mailing list to WSA (WSD task force)
... Need to explain how various versions of specs relate and can be
understood in the context of WSA
<dbooth> Feedback form: http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/100/TP2003/
... > Tech Plenary agenda: http://www.w3.org/2003/03/TechPlenAgenda.html
<ericn> Discussion at WSD has not yet gotten to the
issue of reflecting RESTful messages
... Team members who attendet tech plenary asked to fill out
feedback form (see Dave B post)
<dbooth> > The W3C team would like feedback on
the Tech Plenary, and in
... particular,
... > would like to know whether members would find it helpful
to hold Tech
... > Plenaries more often. Potential benefits: (1) Better
cross-WG
... > communication; (2) possibly reduced travel expenses for
people in
... multiple
... > WGs, since the WGs need to hold F2F meetings anyway, and a
Tech
... Plenary
... > allows them to be consolidated.
... Straw poll: Should we have a Tech Plenary twice a year?
... In favor: ~10
... Opposed: 0
... There were also some questions about whether the "Wednesday
part" would be valuable, but the aspect of co-locating WG meetings
was favored by all who spoke.
<ericn> Discussion about 4 Webs presentation at
plenary and noted about the benefits of raising some of the issues
for further discussion
... Mike suggests that the editors review QA framework editing
guidelines to ensure we're thinking about conformance, what's in
and out of scope
... Discussion on how to progress the spec, divide up the work,
convert to XML etc.
<dbooth> $ which ssh-keygen
... /usr/bin/ssh-keygen