Raw chat log

[Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>]

Raw chat log:

Simon Holdsworth: Audio conference:

Meeting Number: * 913929 * (press * before and after the digits)

Phone numbers:

Austria = Vienna 026822056419
Belgium = Brussels 022901709
China = Beijing 01052237296
Czech Republic = Prague 239014054
Denmark = Copenhagen 32714982
France = Lyon 0426840196 Marseille 0488915310 Paris 0170994364
France TollFree = 0800944795
Germany = Berlin 030726167296 Dusseldorf 021154073845 Frankfurt 069710445413 Hamburg 040809020620 Munich 089244432767 Stuttgart 0711490813212
Germany TollFree = 08006646304
India = Mumbai 02261501417
Ireland = Dublin 014367612
Italy = Milan 0230413007 Rome 06452108288 Turin 01121792100
Japan = Tokyo 0357675037
Netherlands = Amsterdam 0207965349
Poland Toll-free = 008001213648
Portugal Toll Free = 800782079
Russia = Moscow 84999222481
Russia Toll Free = 81080022074011
South Africa Toll-free = 0800982617
Spain = Barcelona 934923140 Madrid 917889793
Sweden = Stockholm 0850520404
Switzerland = Geneva 0225927186
UAE Toll-free = 8000440387
UK = Birmingham 01212604587 London 02071542988 Manchester 01612500379
UK Toll Free = 08003581667
USA = 19543344789
USA & Canada Toll Free = 18665289390

Simon Holdsworth: Agenda

Simon Holdsworth: 1. Opening

Introductions
Roll call

Scribe assignment

Top of the scribe list:
Plamen Pavlov SAP AG
Martin Chapman Oracle Corporation
Anish Karmarkar Oracle Corporation
Tom Rutt Fujitsu Limited
Ashok Malhotra Oracle Corporation
Bryan Aupperle IBM
Laurent Domenech TIBCO Software Inc.
Eric Johnson TIBCO Software Inc.
David Booz IBM
Agenda bashing

2. Approval of the minutes from 1 July:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/38522/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202010-07-01.doc

3. Actions

20090211-4 [General] Write up HTTP binding use cases

4. New Issues

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-131
typos in BWS_2007, BWS_2008, BWS_2009, BWS_4007, BWS_4008

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-132
a few more WS otest typos

5. Open issue discussion

BINDINGS-130: Testing experience suggests requirements BWS40002 & BWS40003are too strict for services
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-130
Proposal is in JIRA

http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BINDINGS-60
JMS Default wire format insufficient to cover real world usage
Raiser: Mike Edwards, owner: Simon Holdsworth
Priority: 3 (deferred)
Status: outline proposal in issue

6. AOB

Eric Johnson: Scribe: Eric

Eric Johnson: Topic: Bryan's leave of absence

Eric Johnson: Mike: We did discuss it.

Eric Johnson: ... but we couldn't change the system.

Eric Johnson: Simon: Got a recommendation from TC admin that someone be identified as a secretary, and they would then be able to make changes.

Eric Johnson: (Stragglers joined, now 70% quorate)

Eric Johnson: Topic: Agenda review

Eric Johnson: Eric: I suggest a brief discussion on the JMS URI scheme.

Eric Johnson: Simon: Thanks to those who stepped in during my absence.

Eric Johnson: Topic: Approval of the minutes

Eric Johnson: No comments on the prior minutes, no objections to approving the minutes, minutes are approved.

Eric Johnson: Topic: Actions

Eric Johnson: No progress

Eric Johnson: Topic: New issues

Eric Johnson: Subtopic: BINDINGS-131

Eric Johnson: Mike: 131 & 132 almost go together.  I've noticed that none of these issues affect the documents that we've voted on.

Eric Johnson: ... bunch of test cases where Tuscany had errors, so we couldn't run all the test cases.  Once those Tuscany problems were fixed, that revealed the problems in the tests.

Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-131, Anish 2nds.

Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objections to unanimous consent.  Motion passes, issue is opened.

Eric Johnson: Mike: 132 is very much the same.

Eric Johnson: Mike moves to open BINDINGS-132, Anish 2nds.

Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objections to unanimous consent.  Motion passes, BINDINGS-132 is opened.

Eric Johnson: Mike: Can we go back and accept the proposals?

Eric Johnson: Simon: OK

Eric Johnson: Mike: These are all already corrected in Subversion.

Eric Johnson: Mike moves to resolve BINDINGS-131 as proposed in JIRA, 2nd by Anish.

Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objections to unanimous consent.  Motion passes and the issue is resolved.

Eric Johnson: Simon: BINDINGS-132

Eric Johnson: Mike moves to resolve BINDINGS-132 as proposed in JIRA, 2nd by Anish.

Eric Johnson: No discussion, no objections to unanimous consent.  Motion passes and the issue is resolved.

Eric Johnson: Topic: JMS URI

Eric Johnson: Eric: Planning to go ahead with provisional registration.

Eric Johnson: Anish: Will we have a URL that we can use from our spec that will never change?

Eric Johnson: Eric: Honestly don't know.  It would seem that we will be able to do this, but it is not clear.  At least some of the current provisional registration

Eric Johnson: Ashok: What were the general concerns?

Eric Johnson: Eric: Some confusion about the draft as proposed, and some licensing concerns around the JMS spec itself.

Eric Johnson: Simon: Anything else?

Eric Johnson: Eric: If you're aware of any "jms" URI schemes that are *not* of the one from the proposed draft, please send them along.

Eric Johnson: Topic: Open issues

Eric Johnson: Mike: I'm of a mood to move to close this issue with no action.  There was discussion on the mailing list as to how to actually solve this, and that part of the problem has been solved.

Eric Johnson: ... Other part of the question is whether or not the notion of restricting to a specific version of SOAP make sense - but perhaps for the Policy TC that defined those intents.

Eric Johnson: Ashok: It is not the policy TC - we only added the intents because somebody, possibly the bindings TC, told us to.  It isn't the policy TC to figure out whether we should be allowing SOAP 1.1/SOAP 1.2 or whatever.  It is for bindings people to say.

Eric Johnson: ... Once we figure that out, we can change the intents.

Eric Johnson: Anish: Minus the concern about being "liberal in what you accept", I'm fine with closing with no action, because the technical problem seems to have been resolved.

Eric Johnson: ... Does the version specific intent make sense?

Simon Holdsworth: ping

anish: pong

Mike Edwards: ping

Eric Johnson: Anish: What will a service reasonably do?  If I want to restrict to SOAP 1.1 or 1.2?  I have a choice to specify a binding.

Eric Johnson: ... Is there a coding issue where specific capabilities of 1.1 or 1.2 are needed?  At an abstract level, there don't appear to be differences.

Eric Johnson: ... yes, there are differences.  But I haven't seen anyone depending on specific features, and people go out of their way to map what they do to both SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2.

Eric Johnson: ... Motivation to specify a 1.1 or 1.2 intent is really low, or non-existent.  On the reference side, might there be a need for the intent?

Eric Johnson: ... But I cannot think of a practical use case where someone cares about the SOAP version.

Eric Johnson: ... Realize that this is late in the game to consider removing the SOAP.1_1 /1_2 intents.

Eric Johnson: Mike: I'm happy to leave the intents in. In a more closed environment, someone might want to say "I only want SOAP 1.2".

Eric Johnson: ... Our intents give them a way to say that.

Eric Johnson: Anish: Couldn't they do that by simply specifying a binding?

Eric Johnson: Simon: Core of the issue - for a service, should we treat receipt of a SOAP message of the wrong version as an error?

Eric Johnson: Anish: Well, no - different question - does it even make sense to qualify SOAP version?

Eric Johnson: Mike: Happy to leave the intents as they are.  So I'll move to close BINDINGS-130 with no action.

Eric Johnson: Mike moves to close BINDINGS-130 with no action, Anish 2nds.

Eric Johnson: Anish: Curious as to whether we should pursue just dropping these intents.

Eric Johnson: Tom: People who know what they're doing won't use these, right?

Eric Johnson: Anish: People start using features if they're there.

Eric Johnson: ... Takes away the argument about robustness principle.

Eric Johnson: Tom: How about putting some kind of note in the policy spec about violating the robustness principle.

Eric Johnson: Anish: I suppose we could advise that you should only use these intents if you use a feature of a specific version of SOAP that doesn't exist in the other.

Eric Johnson: Ashok: The policy spec doesn't have this kind of comment at the moment.

Eric Johnson: Anish: I understand, but it makes sense to provide advice.

Eric Johnson: ... tools might use this to signal how things are generated, but that seems like a misuse.

Eric Johnson: Ashok: Tools will use qualified form, but Anish, you're recommending that they use the unqualified form.

Eric Johnson: Simon: We have a motion on the table.

Eric Johnson: Eric: Doesn't matter to me if we just close it, because we'll just recommend to our customers that you don't qualify your SOAP intent.

Eric Johnson: No objections to the motion.  BINDINGS-130 closed with no action.

Eric Johnson: Meeting adjourned.\