W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > January 2006

RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2006 14:03:56 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3D8DD583.5262FA5F-ON852570FC.00684190-852570FC.0068BB12@us.ibm.com>

I agree with Chris; the binding proposed by Dave seems to be based on the
very simplistic idea that the application level view of an interaction
("one way") determines ALL message exchanges between the parties, leaving
out the possibility of a compatible protocol level exchange. This just
doesn't capture the reality of QoS rich systems.

Note also that whatever the content of the proposed note it will not be
normative in any case.


                      "David Orchard"                                                                                                          
                      <dorchard@bea.com>              To:       Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS                                         
                      Sent by:                        cc:       "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                  
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  RE: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc                                          
                      01/20/2006 01:40 PM                                                                                                      

If you're returning a soap envelope in an HTTP response, by definition
you're not using a one-way binding.

This doesn't affect the MEP in play because there is no MEP with soap 1.1.


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2006 10:34 AM
To: David Orchard
Cc: WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: SOAP 1.1 One-way HTTP Binding doc



I have *significant* heartburn with this as it precludes the use case of
sending a
WS-RM SequenceAcknowledgement (or other infrastructure-level signal) as a
SOAP envelope in the HTTP response.

The use case is considered to be of critical importance to a number of
with which I have dealt who want to leverage WS-RM for both oneway and
request response message flows between business partners.

This proposed binding simply carries forward the mistake that the WS-I BP
made with R2714 and R2750 (which I argued against at the time).

I've got another post still in draft responding to another thread on this
that I will be sending shortly.



Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 01/20/2006 01:09:47 PM:

> Here's an xml spec xml and html version of a one-way HTTP Binding.
> Cheers,
> Dave[attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.xml" deleted by Christopher
> B Ferris/Waltham/IBM] [attachment "soap11onewayhttpbinding.html"
> deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM]
Received on Friday, 20 January 2006 20:11:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC