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

Re: Intermediaries?

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Jul 2004 11:00:36 +0200
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Message-ID: <20040729090036.GB12250@w3.org>
* David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> [2004-07-28 15:13-0400]
> Hugo noticed that we have a requirement regarding intermediaries, but we 
> don't say anything about them in our draft:
> 
> >| R031
> >|
> >|     The WG specification(s) SHOULD support SOAP 1.2 intermediaries.
> >|     (From JJM. Last discussed 11 April 2002.)
> >
> >We say nothing about intermediaries, and I don't remember this being a
> >conscious decision from the time I've been on the Group. The actor
> >attribute is not talked about at all.
> 
> We discussed them at our 19 May 2004 F2F in NYC[1] where we decided to 
> remove soap:header.  From the minutes, it looks like we were thinking that 
> the AD feature would meet this need (to enable an appropriate role header 
> to be set), and we later adopted[2] the AD feature.

Indeed wsoap:header's role attribute[3] went away with wsoap:header. I
don't remember us talking about intermediaries after that.

However, the AD feature allows to define whatever we one wants, so one
could do in the example in [4]:

    <!-- These elements are our data -->
    <element name="isGoldClubMember">
     <complexType>
      <simpleContent>
       <extension base="xs:boolean"/>
       <attribute xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
                  ref="soap:mustUnderstand"
                  fixed="true"/>
       <!-- THIS IS NEW -->
       <attribute xmlns:soap="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
                  ref="soap:role"
                  fixed="http://example.com/foo"/>
       <!-- THIS IS NEW -->
      </simpleContent>
     </complexType>
    </element>

I believe that because of R031, this addition to the example would be
good.

> Is there anything else that we need to do to meet R031, or are we all set 
> on this?

I am wondering if we don't need to add a {soap module role} property
on the SOAP Module component.

As an example, one service may require the use of encryption at the
interface level, and require the use of the "Web Services Security:
SOAP Message Security V1.0" module (let's assume that one has been
defined for it) for its SOAP binding, but may want to have security
information targetted to the http://example.com/crypto SOAP role for
dispatching reasons.

{soap module role} could set the soap:role attribute's value on
headers generated by the module:

  <wsoap:module uri="http://example.com/wss-sws-10" required="true"
 		role="http://example.com/crypto"/>

Comments?

Regards,

Hugo

  3. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-bindings.html?rev=1.20&content-type=text/html;%20charset=iso-8859-1#soap-header-decl
  4. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/desc/wsdl20/wsdl20-patterns.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#adf-dp-desc
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Thursday, 29 July 2004 05:16:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:32 GMT