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

RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 11:37:12 -0700
To: "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "'Francis McCabe'" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <019f01c34c92$706e7850$620ba8c0@beasys.com>
I would like very much to talk about intermediaries.  There are many
architectural issues, like how should an intermediary get modelled in WSDL,
that are related to intermediaries.  Acting as if they don't exist leaves a
big hole and probably lots of chances for non-interoperability.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 11:09 AM
> To: Francis McCabe; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
> 
> 
> 
> Intermediaries have always been a question mark in my mind.
> 
> SOAP talks about them (but not too much in detail).
> WSDL is unaware of them.
> The WS-I Basic Profile considers intermediaries-related 
> interop as out of its scope.
> The WS-I Security Profile is debating them right now, and a 
> few people are thinking of considering them out of scope 
> (which is understandable, but at the same time ironic since 
> many usual example of intermediaries are related to security).
> 
> Ugo
>  
> 
> 


Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:37:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:21 GMT