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

RE: Issue 32: SOAP 1.1 support

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2004 22:59:26 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20040120223718.0256ec60@rgmamerimap.oraclecorp.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

At 10:05 PM 1/20/2004, David Orchard wrote:

>Playing the Hamlet question game, let me follow up with 2 questions:

following up: are you, or are you not? :-)

>1) What IPR issues would hinder SOAP 1.1 support in WSDL 2.0?

WSD is chartered to be RF. If there are normative references to SOAP 1.1, 
then I would think that would imply that there would have to be an RF 
licensing commitment for SOAP 1.1 (or I am missing something?) What exactly 
are the licensing terms for SOAP 1.1, which is not a W3C spec, but "merely" 
a W3C Note (aka member submission by the current process doc)? Should they 
exist, would they be compatible with the rules under which the WSD WG is 
operating?

    [ Note: There are a variety of IPR statements associated with the 
submission (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2000/05/). Many of them talk about 
what happens if the submission were to be adopted as a W3C Recommendation. 
As this did not happen (SOAP 1.2 <> SOAP 1.1), it seems like this leaves 
the situation a bit murky. ]

>2) Is this a principle reason why SOAP 1.1 support would not be included in
>WSDL 2.0?

I have no idea. That's why I asked the question, having been sensitized 
over the last 2 years to IPR issues that seem to lurk in the impenetrable 
web services thickets. I don't even know if it would be an impediment, 
principal, or otherwise. (And yes, i suppose you could argue that I am 
standing on principle. :-)

cheers,
   jeff


>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
> >
> >

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 01:58:04 GMT

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