W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-cg@w3.org > June 2005

RE: Requirements for one-way MEP

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:35:44 -0700
Message-ID: <A5F46F7A688C084782E8C52B76368613A60594@sdebe101.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>, <public-ws-async-tf@w3.org>, <www-ws-cg@w3.org>, <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>

Thanks Glen,

Mark, does WS-Addressing have any additional requirements or scoping 
statements to this?


-----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


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0000.html
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 17:36:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:43:13 UTC