At the last NMWG sub-group, we agreed on the following action items: A) Mark & Paul will rework the Request schema to use Dan's "relaxed" format. They will partition that schema along the lines of the way that Dan partitioned the response schema, with an eye towards sharing common bits. B) Dan, Martin, & Eric will write a requirements document for the Response schema to match the format of the Request schema document. The plan is to meet on the phone again in late February after those items are done for an update on progress and to begin squaring incompatibilities between the two. (For example, there are implicit demands on the response schema in the request schema requirements document.) I'd like to propose for Berlin in March the following agenda items: 1) Review request schema requirements and proposed schema. 2) Review response schema requirements and proposed schema. 3) Analyze the two schemas in combination for incompatibilities and resolve. 4) Begin work on the "development guide". By point 4, I am referring to something that came up during the last call. In brief, the schema representation can only represent what's optional and what's not. It can't link the relationship between the two, e.g. if this fragment of XML schema comes in, then this is how you decide what response to give. This may lead to requirements for intermediate schemas as well. Comments? Suggestions? --Eric Eric L. Boyd eboyd@internet2.edu 734-352-7032 (work) 734-834-6708 (cell) Office 230 Internet2 3025 Boardwalk Ann Arbor, MI 48108