W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Issue 32: SOAP 1.1 support

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:05:06 -0800
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <020c01c3dfe4$8565ba80$6401a8c0@beasys.com>

Playing the Hamlet question game, let me follow up with 2 questions:
1) What IPR issues would hinder SOAP 1.1 support in WSDL 2.0?
2) Is this a principle reason why SOAP 1.1 support would not be included in
WSDL 2.0?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2004 8:34 PM
> To: David Orchard; www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 32: SOAP 1.1 support
>
>
> Any suggestion on how to handle the IPR issues?
>      cheers,
>       jeff
>
> At 04:16 PM 1/20/2004, David Orchard wrote:
>
> >BEA Systems has considerable reservations about any decision
> to not support
> >SOAP 1.1 in WSDL 2.0. While we understand much of the
> motivation - that SOAP
> >1.1 is a W3C Note only and the desire to simplify WSDL 2.0 scope - we
> >believe that this could harm the adoption of WSDL 2.0 and
> even SOAP 1.2.
> >
> >We believe that companies will be deploying both SOAP 1.1
> and SOAP 1.2
> >solutions. Unfortunately, WSDL 1.1 does not have an elegent
> mechanism for
> >description SOAP 1.2. We have already heard customer
> pushback on SOAP 1.2
> >because of this deficit. That implies that WSDL 2.0 is the
> solution for
> >those wanting to describe SOAP 1.2 deployment. But it is
> unlikely that
> >customers, and all their business partners that they
> communicate using SOAP
> >1.1 will all upgrade to SOAP 1.2 and WSDL 2.0 at the same
> time. This means
> >they will be deploying SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2, and described
> by WSDL 1.1 and
> >WSDL 2.0 respectively.
> >
> >We believe that requiring both WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 to
> co-exist in customer
> >and their partner sites will prove too high a barrier for
> many customers to
> >adopt WSDL 2.0. We also believe that even if someone
> supports WSDL 2.0 and
> >SOAP 1.2 their business partners will still continue to use
> SOAP 1.1 as the
> >transition to SOAP 1.2 will take time.  We are also seeing that
> >specifications are being published that have explicit
> support for SOAP 1.1
> >and SOAP 1.2. further evidence of a mixture of deployment in
> the industry.
> >Therefore it is important that it be possible to describe SOAP 1.1
> >communications in WSDL 2.0 so that a WSDL 2.0 compliant
> system can continue
> >to interact with existing partners.
> >
> >We ask the group to consider resolving Issue 32 in favour of SOAP 1.1
> >support.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Dave
>
> Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
> Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
> Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2004 01:04:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:28 GMT