W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 09:49:52 -0500
Message-ID: <3C8E1590.1040104@sun.com>
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Nor is the WSAWG chartered to *provide* "the one". At best,
WSAWG might determine that "one" would be a "good thing(tm)".
Of course, it is clear that there are different use cases
which may require different solutions/approaches.

That being said, I've forwarded this to www-wsa-comments@w3.org
to ensure that it is logged as an issue with XMLP WG as
originator.

Cheers,

Chris


Jacek Kopecky wrote:

>  Stuart,
>  I think you should forward your email to the WS-architecture WG 
> because IMHO the XMLP WG doesn't need to provide "the one 
> standard extension" for this problem (and many other). 8-)
>  Best regards,
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> 
>  > Jacek, Amr,
>  > 
>  > I think we have to say that SOAP 1.2 does not provide *any* normative means
>  > to identify the target "program, service or object". However, SOAP
>  > extensibility, specifically the ability to define the syntax and semantics
>  > of SOAP extension headers, enables the definition of SOAP extensions that
>  > may provide such means.
>  > 
>  > Personally, in the long run I think we have to give app-designers *one*
>  > standardised extension to do this kind of thing. Giving too many to choose
>  > from threatens interoperability and giving none threatens interoperability
>  > because in the absense of any guidance folks will roll their own.
>  > 
>  > Regards
>  > 
>  > Stuart
>  > 
>  > > -----Original Message-----
>  > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
>  > > Sent: 08 March 2002 16:29
>  > > To: amr.f.yassin@philips.com
>  > > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  > > Subject: Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > >  Amr,
>  > >  I prefer solution 2. In some cases putting the target URI in the
>  > > envelope may be undesirable (security considerations, for
>  > > example) or even impossible (when the source does not know/care 
>  > > where exactly the message goes after reaching some intermediary).
>  > >  Even WS-Routing by Microsoft, for example, does not make it 
>  > > mandatory for the source to specify the final target, although it 
>  > > is possible.
>  > >  Best regards,
>  > > 
>  > >                    Jacek Kopecky
>  > > 
>  > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>  > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > 
>  > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 amr.f.yassin@philips.com wrote:
>  > > 
>  > >  > Jacek,
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Shall we add it to the core or make it optional?
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Solution 1: (Add it to the core)
>  > >  > "Modify (Part 1 Section 7: Use of URI in SOAP) to reflect that the 
>  > >  > envelope SHOULD include the target URIs especially if the 
>  > > application uses 
>  > >  > intermediaries and make it part of the XMLP core."
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Solution 2: (Make it application dependent)
>  > >  > "It is the responsibility of the application designer to 
>  > > provide the 
>  > >  > appropriate target URIs at the appropriate points of the 
>  > > message path, or 
>  > >  > of a routing extension, not of the SOAP core."
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > What do you think?
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Amr Yassin
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
>  > >  > 03/07/2002 02:37 PM
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >  
>  > >  >         To:     AMR F Yassin/BRQ/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@AMEC
>  > >  >         cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
>  > >  >         Subject:        Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41
>  > >  >         Classification: 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >  Amr, 
>  > >  >  I'm afraid the text you quote does not address the issue. I 
>  > >  > think the proposal should rather be to say: 
>  > >  >  "While the target URI is not normatively in the envelope, if an 
>  > >  > application uses intermediaries, it must configure somehow 
>  > >  > (either statically or using dynamic routing protocol) the message 
>  > >  > path. Part of this configuration is the successive target URIs. 
>  > >  > Therefore it is the responsibility of the application designer to 
>  > >  > provide the appropriate target URIs at the appropriate points of 
>  > >  > the message path, or of a routing extension, not of the SOAP 
>  > >  > core."
>  > >  >  What'dya think? 8-)
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >                    Jacek Kopecky
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>  > >  >                    http://www.systinet.com/
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 amr.f.yassin@philips.com wrote:
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >  > Hi,
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > I was assigned to write down a proposal to resolve issue 41. 
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > <Issue_41>
>  > >  >  > The target (program, service or object) URI (TBD) is 
>  > > not mentioned in 
>  > >  > any 
>  > >  >  > normative way in the SOAP envelope. While this does not 
>  > > conflict with 
>  > >  > the 
>  > >  >  > requirements, I believe it's an important (and possibly 
>  > > debatable) 
>  > >  >  > decision. This decision precludes sending an RPC 
>  > > invocation through an 
>  > >  >  > intermediary that uses different protocol bindings for 
>  > > sending and 
>  > >  >  > receiving XP messages. [1]
>  > >  >  > </Issue_41>
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > Proposal:
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > I propose to close this issue since it was addressed in 
>  > > Part 1 section 
>  > >  > 2.1 
>  > >  >  > and 2.2
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > <Sec_2.1>
>  > >  >  > A SOAP node can be the initial SOAP sender, the 
>  > > ultimate SOAP receiver, 
>  > >  > or 
>  > >  >  > a SOAP intermediary, in which case it is both a SOAP 
>  > > sender and a SOAP 
>  > >  >  > receiver.
>  > >  >  > ...
>  > >  >  > A SOAP node MUST be identified by a URI
>  > >  >  > </Sec_2.1>
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > <Sec_2.2>
>  > >  >  > In processing a SOAP message, a SOAP node is said to 
>  > > act in one or more 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >  > SOAP roles, each of which is identified by a URI known 
>  > > as the SOAP role 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  >  > name. 
>  > >  >  > </Sec_2.2>
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  >  > ________________________________________
>  > >  >  > Amr Yassin      <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
>  > >  >  > Research Member
>  > >  >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > >  > 
>  > > 
>  > 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 09:50:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT