W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > December 2003

RE: Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 2003 14:59:44 -0800
Message-ID: <EDDE2977F3D216428E903370E3EBDDC9039587B6@MAIL01.stc.com>
To: "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

By the way, I recently made an observation about intermediaries in WS-Chor, which was picked up by the WSD WG: see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Dec/0003.html .

I responded to that message, hoping to start a new thread on that subject within WSD, but nobody responded.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Paul Denning
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 2:51 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues
> 
> 
> 
> fyi,
> RFC 3234
> Middleboxes: Taxonomy and Issues
> http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc3234.txt
> 
> Intermediaries in the web services architecture probably 
> could include some 
> things that would be in RFC 3234, and some other things not 
> in RFC 3234.
> 
> There is also an IETF Middlebox Comm WG
> http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/midcom-charter.html
> 
> These are related works.
> 
> I think WSA needs to get crisper language about SOAP 
> intermediaries as they 
> relate to service descriptions.
> 
> We either need to tell WSDWG that they MUST address R031 [1]  "The WG 
> specification(s) SHOULD support SOAP 1.2 intermediaries."
> 
> or tell WSCG that this is a gap that needs filling (i.e., how 
> to describe 
> SOAP intermediaries).
> 
> If we have a way to describe SOAP intermediaries, then 
> WS-Chor may be able 
> to address how they fit into a choreography.
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-desc-reqs/#binddesc
> 
> 
> Paul
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 5 December 2003 18:00:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT