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

Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41

From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 10:38:06 -0800
Cc: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>, amr.f.yassin@philips.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: "Jean-Jacques Moreau" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Message-Id: <4B43DFEC-35E8-11D6-9CA2-000A27836A68@mnot.net>

Right; however, according to the current definition (or at least when I 
last looked), that intermediary isn't a SOAP Intermediary, which must be 
targeted within the envelope. The sender might not be aware of a SOAP 
Intermediary's locality (for routing) or identity (in the case that the 
actor URI identifies a class of intermediary), but it is aware of at 
least the possibility of its existence, due to this constraint.

Integrating non-SOAP intermediaries into the SOAP processing model is a 
topic that I've been interested in for a while; however, it's most 
likely out of scope for this WG. There might be some future coordination 
between whoever does consider it and the IETF OPES Working Group [1][2], 
however.

Cheers & back to lurking,

1. http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/opes-charter.html
2. http://www.ietf-opes.org/


On Tuesday, March 12, 2002, at 07:31  AM, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:

> Remember that the sending application may not be aware of any 
> intermediaries, at
> least not of all of them; for example my ISP may have a securing 
> intermediary
> that I am not aware of. Unfortunately, I don't think the current wording
> addresses this issue.
>
> Jean-Jacques.
>
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
>
>>  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
>>>
>
>
--
Mark Nottingham
http://www.mnot.net/
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 13:38:15 GMT

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