W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-tag-announce@w3.org > January 2005

[Fwd: New TAG Issue: endPointRef-47 (was Re: New issue; WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols)]

From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:49 +0000
Message-ID: <41F8AAF0.9090203@hp.com>
To: public-tag-announce@w3.org



FYI...

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	New TAG Issue: endPointRef-47 (was Re: New issue; 
WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols)
Resent-Date: 	Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:38:31 +0000
Resent-From: 	www-tag@w3.org
Date: 	Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:35:21 +0000
From: 	Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
To: 	Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
CC: 	www-tag@w3.org, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, mark.nottingham@bea.com
References: 	<20050103050358.GU3676@markbaker.ca>



Mark,

The TAG discussed the issue that you proposed at its distributed meeting 
on 24th Jan [1] and decided to add a new issue to our issues list [2].

I would like it to be clear that this decision should not be seen as 
implicity supporting for your position or rejecting the WS-Addressing 
WGs position.  It is an indication that the TAG would like to spend 
more time discussing the issue and understanding its architectural 
signifiance (if any) more fully.

Best regards

Stuart Williams
On behalf of W3C TAG
--
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jan/att-0021/tag-20050124.html#item10
[2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#endPointRefs-47

Mark Baker wrote:

>Hello TAG,
>
>I attempted to raise[1] an issue with the WS Addressing WG recently,
>regarding what I felt to be a serious architectural flaw with the
>WS-Addressing SOAP binding[2].  In a nutshell, it requires that the URI
>in the "Address" component of a WS-Addressing EPR be serialized into a 
>wsa:To SOAP header, independent of the underlying protocol.  IMO, a
>Web-architecture consistent means of doing this would be to serialize it
>to the Request-URI when using SOAP with HTTP, or the "RCPT TO:" value
>when using SOAP with SMTP, etc...  Unfortunately, the WG disagreed with
>me that this was a problem, and declined[3] to accept it as an issue.
>
>I believe the reasoning that was given for the issue being declined
>was flawed.  It claimed that additional bindings could be defined, which
>is true, but does nothing to address the issue with the SOAP binding and
>its suitability for use with application protocols (indeed, one possible
>resolution would be to claim that it should only be used with transport
>protocols).  But it's clear to me that the status quo with the SOAP
>binding is inconsistent with the architecture of the Web (and the
>Internet too), so I respectfully request that the TAG consider this as a
>new issue.
>
>Thanks!  And Happy New Year to all.
>
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/0119.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-addr-soap-20041208/
> [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0001.html
>
>Mark.
>  
>
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 13:02:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:17:59 GMT