They are attached. --- Jim Minutes from the April 7, 2006 GRAAP Telecon Attendees --------- Toshi Nakata Jim Pruyne Heiko Ludwig Wolfgang Ziegler Discussion ---------- - Spreadsheet row 23: Heiko will look into adding some text to clarify that when there are no service terms, there can also be no guarantee terms since the guarantee term must refer to a service term. - We determined that we do not need the pseudo-schema in 7.2 and 7.3 as it is not consistent with the real schema, and is covered in the 9.5.2 section on the service state information. - Spreadsheet row 25: Consensus is that would we don't feel like handling the complication of both parties providing a service in the first spec. - Spreadsheet row 26: We'll use Karl's proposed text in the intro. to the appendix as it does seem to explain our intent. - Spreadsheet row 27: Our intent will be to use string for Name type fields, and NCName for Id type fields. We realize this may cause some difficulty with current, though early, implementations. Heiko to make this change after verifying that it doesn't cause significant difficulty in the case of their implementation. - Spreadsheet row 28: Agreed, we should, and we'll watch for those recommendations. - Spreadsheet row 29: Agreed, changes have been made. - Spreadsheet row 30: We've made both Name and ServiceName indicated as MANDATORY. For Name, we did this because they service description terms are referred to by name in other places. We don't feel like tackling the issue of cross-agreement consistency w.r.t. the service names. - Spreadsheet row 31: We agree that it is redundant, but we like having the clarifying text here rather than requiring the reader to refer back to the partent type. - Spreadsheet row 32: We'll use the Name and Id types we agreed upon in row 27. - Spreadsheet row 33: Agreed, and done. - Spreadsheet row 34: Agreed, and done. - Spreadsheet row 35 & 36: Have already been addressed.