NCIP Conference Call Minutes
Feb. 11, 2008
Note: This call was originally scheduled for Monday, February 4, 2008. How- ever, due to technical difficulties with the conferencing bridge, the call was rescheduled and held on Monday, February 11, 2008.
1 Call Participants
2 Agenda
2.1 Schedule next call
Zemon scheduled the next call for 3 March 2008 at 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 1pm Mountain / 12pm Pacific. Access information will be published on the NCIP website.
2.2 Open Enumerations
Zemon raised a question originally posted to the list by Lynne Brown. Brown has started reviewing the protocol, looking for open enumerations that can be closed. However, she is unclear as to the original goal. In this call, the group decided that the goal is to determine whether any existing open enumerations can be closed, thus becomining candidates for the general simplification of enu- merations proposed as part of Version 2. Zemon volunteered to summarize this part of the dicussion to the list and to urge Brown to continue her efforts. The group acknowledged that the actual values in any of the newly closed lists will require debate and discussion.
2.3 Additional Version 2 Issues
2.3.1 SIP-related issues
Jensen indicated that he has not seen any activity related to the block detail discussions from the fall meeting. Boettcher reported that she hopes to post some of her work on this topic very soon.
2.3.2 Making Headers Optional
Jensen pointed out that some implementations use information from headers that the group is considering making optional in Version 2. As a result, these implementations will need to change, or Implementer Agreements may be re- quired between implementers to make the optional headers required in certain situations. He feels there should be a place in the protocol for any informa- tion currently being inferred from message headers. He agreed to draft some examples and post to the list for comment.
2.3.3 Authentication
Jensen said that no facility exists in NCIP to match the SIP Login (93/94) mes- sage. He would like to see something implemented to provide some protection against unauthorized access to an ILS through NCIP. Walsh raised the issue of state. NCIP is inherently stateless, while SIP maintains a notion of stateful connections. Zemon agreed that the issue should be discussed and, if we decide nothing should be implemented, we should at least draft a statement explaining that it was reviewed. Boettcher suggested that Jensen post some examples of how a login mechanism might be implemented in a stateless protocol.
2.3.4 Namespaces
Jensen said that NCIP seems to lend itself to implementation through Web Services, but the lack of support for namespaces may prove to be a hinderance. Zemon agreed that this is important since NCIP is considered to be closely related to the concept of Web Services.
2.4 Spring Meeting
Boettcher provided some information relative to the spring meeting in April in Minneapolis. Details are available at the NCIP website.
2.5 Adjournment
Zemon adjourned the call.
1 Call Participants
- 3M - Sue Boettcher
- College Center for Library Automation - Karen Schneider
- EnvisionWare - Rob Walsh
- Polaris - Candy Zemon
- SirsiDynix - Brent Jensen
2 Agenda
2.1 Schedule next call
Zemon scheduled the next call for 3 March 2008 at 3pm Eastern / 2pm Central / 1pm Mountain / 12pm Pacific. Access information will be published on the NCIP website.
2.2 Open Enumerations
Zemon raised a question originally posted to the list by Lynne Brown. Brown has started reviewing the protocol, looking for open enumerations that can be closed. However, she is unclear as to the original goal. In this call, the group decided that the goal is to determine whether any existing open enumerations can be closed, thus becomining candidates for the general simplification of enu- merations proposed as part of Version 2. Zemon volunteered to summarize this part of the dicussion to the list and to urge Brown to continue her efforts. The group acknowledged that the actual values in any of the newly closed lists will require debate and discussion.
2.3 Additional Version 2 Issues
2.3.1 SIP-related issues
Jensen indicated that he has not seen any activity related to the block detail discussions from the fall meeting. Boettcher reported that she hopes to post some of her work on this topic very soon.
2.3.2 Making Headers Optional
Jensen pointed out that some implementations use information from headers that the group is considering making optional in Version 2. As a result, these implementations will need to change, or Implementer Agreements may be re- quired between implementers to make the optional headers required in certain situations. He feels there should be a place in the protocol for any informa- tion currently being inferred from message headers. He agreed to draft some examples and post to the list for comment.
2.3.3 Authentication
Jensen said that no facility exists in NCIP to match the SIP Login (93/94) mes- sage. He would like to see something implemented to provide some protection against unauthorized access to an ILS through NCIP. Walsh raised the issue of state. NCIP is inherently stateless, while SIP maintains a notion of stateful connections. Zemon agreed that the issue should be discussed and, if we decide nothing should be implemented, we should at least draft a statement explaining that it was reviewed. Boettcher suggested that Jensen post some examples of how a login mechanism might be implemented in a stateless protocol.
2.3.4 Namespaces
Jensen said that NCIP seems to lend itself to implementation through Web Services, but the lack of support for namespaces may prove to be a hinderance. Zemon agreed that this is important since NCIP is considered to be closely related to the concept of Web Services.
2.4 Spring Meeting
Boettcher provided some information relative to the spring meeting in April in Minneapolis. Details are available at the NCIP website.
2.5 Adjournment
Zemon adjourned the call.
