MeetingNotes-Minutes-05-19-05

[Rex Brooks <rexb@starbourne.com>]

Hi Folks,

I always include the actual minutes in the email I send separate from 
Kavi when I do minutes of TC meeting. It gives everyone a handy way 
to send me corrections.

Regards,
Rex

1.Accept minutes?
Yes.

2. SC reports/issues
  2.a Interoperability (Richard)
  2.b Conformance (Rich)
  2.c WSDL (Andre)
  2.d PFB (Richard)
  2.e Coordination (Rich)
  2.f Interfaces (Mike)
  2.g Primer (Subbu)

	Richard was absent due to illness and Andre was not on the 
call at the start, so there were no reports for the Interoperability, 
WSDL and PFB SCs.

	Conformance:
	Rich reported that he had uploaded a new version of the 
Conformance statements.xls  with the deltas for v2.0

	Coordination;
	?(no notes for this)

	Interfaces:
	Mike reported that the Interoperability SC had met last week, 
starting the new regimen of meeting weekly to work the v2.0 issues 
for the TC meetings to be less frequent and lessen the attendance 
constraints, while we are working these issues, in aid of getting 
Version 2.0 ready for a vote for committee draft status to start the 
new 60-day public comment period. He said they had covered the issues 
to be addressed in the TC meeting today.


3.FAQ issues/discussion (Clinton)
Clinton asked for more comments on v2.0 FAQ and Mike said he would 
accommodate soon. The issue of whether to have a separate v2.0 FAQ or 
to have a "What's New" section was briefly discussed.

4. F2F action items
4.1.Check the impact of using the schema extension concept on impact 
in their code. While we developed the numbers of types impacted if 
the v2 schema extends types from the v1 schema, this was the missing 
piece we wanted feedback on before making a decision.

Rich asked for comments/guidance from company groups implementing the 
extensions of schemas for types was preferred for well-known 
extensions or if there was a preference for redefining this for v2.0 
as a whole.


4.2.Review the current FAQ making comments on current Q&A and 
proposing new questions (1 sentence questions with 2-3 sentence 
answers + links to more material)

Clinton asked for comments on the current Q & A.

4.3Get feedback from your organization about which of the three new 
IPR modes is preferred and which are acceptable. This info will be 
important when we need to select an IPR mode for the TC and may take 
some time for some organizations to develop.

Rich asked for feedback from the legal departments for company 
policies related to the impending IPR issues positions which the TC 
must eventually vote on. He said he would post a url for the 
appropriate section of the TC-Process document.


4.4(Mike Freedman) Propose a solution for JSF-like Consumers (i.e. 
those that use an encapsulating form)

Mike said he was not encouraged about this approach, and said that he 
comes back with more on this, he would have a specific proposal for 
tokenizing that will have a description of issues involved in 
encapsulating forms, and specifically mentioned that the Producer 
needed to be included somewhat.

4.5(Subbu) Detail use case(s) for allowing Portlets to return a 
redirectURL from handleEvents
Subbu said he was still working on the issues involved in this.

4.6(Subbu) Propose (with Richard) a solution to the 
customUserProfileItems issue
Subbu noted that Richard's illness delayed this.

4.7(Atul) Propose a definition for a wsrp:config mode

Atul said that he would continue working this. Rich said that it 
should be optional if included. Mike said it should be included in 
the Appendix for JSR 168 issues, in this case related to what WSRP 
allows in "custom" modes. Rich mentioned that we would be happy to 
host similar work for other platforms, such as .Net.

4.8(Andre) Review available and intended support for MTOM by the 
major web stacks.

4.9(Rich) Publish a draft 09 capturing F2F decisions (target = 5/6)

Done.

4.10(Rich) Develop a conformance statement delta for Conformance SC review

Done.


5.CR304a - "extra" schema file ... experience? Comments?

This is the issue related to 4.1 where we need comments/guidance on 
whether to stay with the practice of having an "extra" namespace of 
well-known extensions with schemas for "NamedString" etc. or to 
overhaul it for v2.0.

Mike is in favor of continuing it as a convenience, and also as a way 
to encourage interoperability in the realm of extensions.

6. V2 Specification
6.Draft 09 is the current version.

  6.2 Open Issues:
6.2.1Issue #35: Producer policy change which impacts a registrations' 
lifetime. [Tentative resolution: Add a ResourceSuspended fault and a 
3 stage lifecycle for resources (registrations and CCPs)]

Done-reflected in Draft 09.

There appears to be some confusion around the RegistrationState and 
RegistrationContext pertaining the 3-stage lifecycle, and it was 
decided to review it more in the next Interfaces SC meeting.

6.2.2Issue #44: Add feedback mechanism to public parameter model?

There was some confusion about consistency and details of 
HandleEventFailed with regard to options: ConsumerID, Event Qname, 
index of array (specifying if it is 0-based or  1-based ). It is 
somewhat out of the norm with our common format for failed items [ ] 
+ fault code + localized string.
Rich will rework the client data structure-6.1.19

7.Next F2F scheduled for October 4-7, 2005 in Dublin, Ireland 
(Citrix); preliminary goal = discuss and prioritize v3 use cases; if 
possible, cast into features with owners

Andre confirmed Dublin, Ireland for the next F@F.

8.Other items?
Next TC meeting set for June 17 and 23, holding 23 in reserve in case 
we need it to get a final vote on v2.0 for committee draft status.
-- 
Rex Brooks
President, CEO
Starbourne Communications Design
GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
Berkeley, CA 94702
Tel: 510-849-2309