W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > June 2005

Re: Requirements for one-way MEP

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:25:36 -0700
Message-ID: <42B8A1F0.9070407@oracle.com>
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org

The second reference should be:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/2005Feb/0005.html

-Anish
--

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
> Speaking for myself, there are two things (related to async and use of 
> ws-addressing) that I would like to get clarification on from XMLP 
> (these things have come up before on the XMLP/WSDL/async-TF list). These 
> two things, I don't think is "new work" but clarification on the 
> existing SOAP-HTTP binding.
> 
> 1) Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require that a SOAP envelope be sent back 
> in the HTTP-response (for the non-failure case). See [1].
> 
> 2) Can 303 status code be used for pull-based async req-response using 
> the existing SOAP/HTTP binding. See thread starting at [2].
> 
> Thx.
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Nov/0005.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Nov/0005.html
> 
> 
> Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
>>
>> Mike: I'll ask on next week's telecon.
>>
>> Addressing WG: Please see below WRT WSDL's request to start a one-way  
>> MEP; we'll discuss whether we have anything to add next week (Reply- 
>> To set to the Addressing list to keep the cross-chatter down).
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:35 AM, <michael.mahan@nokia.com>  
>> <michael.mahan@nokia.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Glen,
>>>
>>> Mark, does WS-Addressing have any additional requirements or scoping
>>> statements to this?
>>>
>>> Thx,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: www-ws-cg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-cg-request@w3.org]On
>>> Behalf Of ext Glen Daniels
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:38 PM
>>> To: www-ws-cg@w3.org
>>> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
>>> Subject: Requirements for one-way MEP
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Greetings, CG:
>>>
>>> As Jonathan mentioned in [1], the WS-Description group have requested
>>> the specification of a one-way SOAP MEP.  I believe the deliverables
>>> here are as follows:
>>>
>>> * A SOAP one-way MEP, which describes a simple "fire and forget"
>>> single-message pattern, with an appropriate URI and specification  as 
>>> per
>>> the SOAP 1.2 binding framework.
>>>
>>> * A binding of this MEP to HTTP.  This may involve changing the  
>>> existing
>>> HTTP binding, or may involve generating a new one.
>>>
>>> * A clear description of how each party (sender and receiver)  
>>> determines
>>> which MEP is in use.
>>>
>>> The requirements for this are pretty much spelled out above, except  for
>>> one more (fairly light/intangible one) that I would add:
>>>
>>> * Should if possible take into account the WS-I work in this area.
>>>
>>> I thought there might be more to it, but I think that's about it!  If
>>> anyone from WSDL/async thinks there are more requirements, please  chime
>>> in.
>>>
>>> --Glen
>>>
>>> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0000.html
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
>> Office of the CTO   BEA Systems
>>
>>
> 
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 23:25:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT