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: Wed, 21 Jan 2004 09:38:22 -0800
To: "'Jeff Mischkinsky'" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <026f01c3e045$5eebe8f0$6401a8c0@beasys.com>


> >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?

Ah, there's a normative reference but it's not a normative dependency.
Anybody who doesn't use SOAP 1.1 doesn't need that part of WSDL.  Anybody
who does use SOAP 1.1 has already made their decision about how to deal with
IPR.

If it were a dependency, that is you couldn't deploy WSDL 2.0 without
automatically licensing S11 IPR, then I would be more understanding of your
comments.

>
>     [ 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. ]

I don't see this as core to the point.  Even if S11 is completely RAND
(though I believe every company has publicly stated in some form it is RF),
it still is not a normative dependency, and people are using S11.

>
> >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
>

So you believe that all your customers and their partners are going to
miraculously move from SOAP 1.1 to 1.2, so you don't have to help them
support SOAP 1.1 in WSDL?  Or are your customers not deploying SOAP 1.1 and
deploying SOAP 1.2 instead, so they have no need?

I'm a little uncomfortable comparing "principle"s in public.  I'm more
interested in talking about what customers requirements are.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Wednesday, 21 January 2004 12:37:03 GMT

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