[business-transaction] BTP March 20 con call - Minutes

[William Z Pope <zpope@pobox.com>]

Minutes
BTP TC phone conference March 20

Agenda Items
=======================
- Face to face schedule
- Progress on Issues
- Schedule
- Primer

Attendees:
  Bill Cox
  Pyounguk Cho
  Bill Flood
  Peter Furniss
  Tony Fletcher
  Alex Ceponkus
  Doug Bunting
  Stephen White
  Mark Potts
  Anne Manes
  Geoff Brown
  Bill Pope

Highlights
1) Still a few open issues.  Need to resolve these by or during the March 27th
   con call to support publication of review draft on April 1.    
2) The call for vote in Issue 29: Redirection must be re-issued due to errors
   in the proposed solution text.


Actions:
* Bill Pope to send out email votes on Issues with "Solution Proposed"
* Bill Pope send email to question vote on Issue 29.  
  Was it clear that people were voting on the "proposed solution."  Not the 
  "suggested solution" on the issue list.  The email incorrectly included text
  from the suggested solution in the proposal. 
  This will need to be worded correctly and re-voted.
* Geoff Brown to have reviewed by Oracle staff the current BTP SOAP bindings.  
* Anne Manes to review, or have reviewed, the current BTP SOAP bindings. 
* Bill Cox to publish a draft of the Primer Wednesday evening.
* Anne Manes to liason with Eve Mahler on JAXP.
* Geoff Brown to draft text for resolution of Issue 89.  
* Bill Pope to contact Mark Little to prepare text to propose moving Issue 108
  from Deferred to Open.

Votes

+ The proposed dates for the face-to-face in Newcastle were voted and
  accepted.  The face-to-face will take place on May 16th and 17th.


Discussion

Face-to-Face
  Location: Newcastle UK
  Proposed dates: May 16th and 17th
+ Acceptance of dates moved, voted, and passed with one abstention

Progress on Issues
  - Schedule calls for a review draft to be issued by March 25.  This draft is
    to have all issues resolved and include all diagrams.  All issues will not
    be resolved by that date.  The date for completion of the review draft
    will move to March 29th (see Schedule below)
    Email votes can close 
  - 4 at solution proposed
    Issues 29, 96, 98, and 106
    Issue 29: Redirection needs to be revoted, see Issue 29 below.

  - 5 open issues left, 1 additional may be moved from deferred to open.
    Issue 4: Glossary is out-of-date 
    - Editorial change.

    Issue 61: Tables of send/receives for each role. 
    - Pending, the tables from Sanjay and Sazi are in the editors hands. 

    Issue 87: Conformance Level 
    - Pending, new conformance text is being drafted.

    Issue 89: J2EE Interoperabiltiy- JMS short circuit
    - Geoff to draft text for resolution.

    Issue 100: Separation of delivery information from payload.
    - Pending, can be handled editorially.

    Issue 108: Participant and service identification 
    - Current status is deferred.


Issue 89
  - There was broad support on the con call for supporting this in the 1.0
    spec. 
  - Geoff, crux is the carrier type in JMS.
  - Bill Cox, there is a wider need for sharing the identity and context
    information outside BTP
  - Doug
    JSR schedule will constrain what we can do.
    XML Pipeline can address this issue.
  - Anne 
    This would be best handled in next release of JAXP.
  * Anne can liason to Eve Mahler on JAXP
  - Need definition of where the context information goes in the SOAP
    headers. 

SOAP Binding
  Discussion of comments from Mark Baker from W3C web services architecture
  group.  He represents the W3C TAG and its REST architecture.  Concensus of
  those on this call and participating in the email discussion was to defer
  REST friendly binding.  The W3C web services architecture group itself has
  not resolved how important REST support is for web services.  BTP should
  watch the debate going on in that group and decide how to proceed post-1.0. 
  * Anne will review, or have reviewed, the current BTP SOAP bindings.

Issue 29: Redirection
  - Doug Bunting voiced a dissenting opinion, voting against the proposal.  He
    thought that the redirection and specifically having both FAULT/redirect
    and REDIRECT was uneccessarily complicated.
  - Was the vote tainted by the wording in the email?  At least the wording
    was deceptive.  There was confusion as to what people were actually
    voting.  Due to the irregularity of the ballot THE VOTE NEEDS TO BE
    RE-ISSUED. 


Schedule
  March 11
  - work on raw material
    - primer
    - model section
    - integration of model section with spec

  March 25
  - produce review draft

  April 1
  * Publish review draft to TC
  - start of comment period

  April 15
  - end of comment period
  - start of comment assimilation and editing

  April 29
  * Re-Publish draft to TC
  - TC internal review

  Week of May 13
  - F2F, vote on acceptance as committee draft

William Z Pope
zpope@pobox.com