Re: SOAP XMPP Binding

Did you folks ever get a chance to discuss the SOAP XMPP Binding? I've
just corrected a few small errors in the spec; the latest version is
available here:

http://www.jabber.org/jeps/jep-0072.html

Thanks.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
Jabber Software Foundation
http://www.jabber.org/people/stpeter.shtml


On Mon, Jan 24, 2005 at 11:17:48AM -0800, David Fallside wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i'll put it on this week's agenda
> 
> 
> ======================
> David Fallside
> Information Management Stds & OS
> Tel 530.477.7169
> (TL 544.9665)
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                                        
>              Noah                                                      
>              Mendelsohn/Cambri                                         
>              dge/IBM@LOTUS                                              To
>                                        David Fallside/Santa Teresa/IBM 
>              01/23/2005 11:53                                           cc
>              AM                        curbera@us.ibm.com,             
>                                        rubys@us.ibm.com,               
>                                        sanjiva@us.ibm.com,             
>                                        www-ws-cq@w3.org,               
>                                        xml-dist-app@w3.org, Peter      
>                                        Saint-Andre <stpeter@jabber.org>
>                                                                    Subject
>                                        Re: SOAP XMPP Binding(Document  
>                                        link: David Fallside)           
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
>                                                                        
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> Please take a look at the attached.   Although Peter is not asking for a
> formal review of his spec at this time,  I suspect he would appreciate some
> sort of group response from the XML Protocols workgroup, or at least an
> explanation of what the options for coordination might be.
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> --------------------------------------
> Noah Mendelsohn
> IBM Corporation
> One Rogers Street
> Cambridge, MA 02142
> 1-617-693-4036
> --------------------------------------
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> |---------+---------------------------->
> |         |           Peter Saint-Andre|
> |         |           <stpeter@jabber.o|
> |         |           rg>              |
> |         |                            |
> |         |           01/18/2005 06:36 |
> |         |           PM               |
> |         |                            |
> |---------+---------------------------->
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
>   |                                                                                                                              |
>   |       To:       noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com                                                                                   |
>   |       cc:       www-ws-cq@w3.org, xml-dist-app@w3.org, rubys@us.ibm.com, curbera@us.ibm.com, sanjiva@us.ibm.com              |
>   |       Subject:  Re: SOAP XMPP Binding                                                                                        |
>   >------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the quick feedback! Comments inline.
> 
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2005 at 12:51:42AM -0500, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
> > Hey, this is cool!  Thank you for sending this along.  I am not in a
> > position at this point to speak formally for the XML Protocols workgroup.
> 
> > Indeed the workgroup is meeting more rarely (I.e. trying to declare
> > success) and is focussing primarily on bug fixes and maintenance in the
> > short- to medium-term, so I don't know what the likelihood is of your
> > getting any sort of formal review.
> 
> At this point we are looking for an informal review only (i.e., did we
> do something really stupid?). When I worked with Shane McCarron on our
> spec for XHTML over Jabber/XMPP, we completed an informal review, with
> the intent that we will complete a formal review before that spec goes
> to Final within the Jabber Software Foundation's standards process.
> Presumably we could do the same with the SOAP XMPP Binding.
> 
> > * Overall, this looks good, and I'm delighted to see these sorts of
> > bindings being created.   We worked hard to layer the SOAP Recommendation
> 
> > so that this would be possible, and I'm glad that's proving useful to the
> 
> > Jabber community.  Indeed, it would be interesting to hear any comments
> on
> > whether the binding framework, abstractions for MEP's etc. met your
> needs.
> 
> The HTTP and Email bindings were not quite defined consistently and it
> took me a little while to figure out what the expectations were regarding
> proper definition of a binding, which is one reason I think the informal
> review would be helpful.
> 
> > * I don't know the Jabber protocol in detail, but you mention store and
> > forward.  It might be worth saying something about how this relates to
> the
> > notion of SOAP intermediaries.  In particular if Jabber is "storing and
> > forwarding", you might want to indicate whether and how storage points
> can
> > be addressed as intermediaries, and thus whether or not SOAP processing
> > can be done at such waystations.
> 
> Store and forward in the Jabber/XMPP context means that if an endpoint
> is not online at the time a message is sent, the message is stored by
> the endpoint's authoritative server for delivery when the endpoint next
> becomes available. So if you send a Jabber message to stpeter@jabber.org
> but I'm not online, the jabber.org server will store it for me, then
> deliver it when I next log in. We don't really have intermediaries in
> the Jabber/XMPP world, at least not yet and not as that concept is
> defined in SOAP or Web services.
> 
> > * I would strongly urge you to consider the emerging MTOM/XOP
> > specifications as the basis for your "attachment" work going forward.  I
> > think the writing is on the wall that these will be the preferred means
> of
> > doing attachments in SOAP.  I'd expect them to go to full W3C
> > Recommendation status real soon now.  In the meantime, the Proposed
> > Recommendation versions are at:
> >
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-xop10-20041116/
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-mtom-20041116/
> >     http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/PR-soap12-rep-20041116/
> >
> > Note that the 3rd of these gives a means not just of carrying binary, but
> 
> > of asserting that it is a cached representation of the Web resource at
> > some particular URL.  XOP/MTOM map down to multipart/mime as you suggest
> > for Jabber, but with a reasonably clean and well-layered processing model
> 
> > (in my opinion.)
> 
> OK, thanks, I'll have a look at those and discuss the matter with the
> main author of the SOAP-Over-XMPP spec (he brought me in to write the
> formal binding definition).
> 
> > * You probably need to say something about XML 1.0 vs XML 1.1.  For the
> > moment, SOAP is XML 1.0 only (primarily because we have a normative
> schema
> > and there is no way to write a normative schema for an XML 1.1 document
> > just yet.)  Not sure where Jabber (or the rest of the industry for that
> > matter) is headed on XML 1.1, but it might be worth a sentence or two to
> > tell your story, whatever it is.  Specifically, if you allow <?xml
> > version="1.1"?> on a Jabber message, then you might have to explicitly
> say
> > that the constructs within the <soap:envelope> subtree must result in an
> > Infoset that could have been represented in an XML 1.0 document.  No new
> > characters in element names, etc.
> 
> Currently, XMPP is defined in terms of XML 1.0 and we didn't say
> anything about XML 1.1 in RFC 3920, and I think the right place to
> discuss this in depth would be rfc3920bis. However, a brief note about
> XML 1.1 might be appropriate in the SOAP XMPP Binding for the sake of
> clarity.
> 
> > * It would be interesting to consider the pros and cons of supporting the
> 
> > SOAP WebMethod feature.  With that, you could have a standard means of
> > doing a Jabber request to "Get" a representation of a resource in the
> form
> > of an application/soap+xml envelope.  Not sure if that's the sort of
> thing
> > one commonly does with Jabber.   I'm also not sure whether this is a good
> 
> > idea or not.  One advantage of this approach is that it points a way to
> > gatewaying into HTTP gets.   Then again, I should admit that industry
> > support for WebMethod=GET seems to be all too spotty at the moment, even
> > for HTTP.
> 
> I still think that the WebMethod functionality is most appropriate for
> gateways between XMPP and HTTP, but I'll give some further thought to
> whether and how using WebMethod might be appropriate in a more native
> fashion.
> 
> > I'm not a WSDL expert, so I haven't reviewed those sections in detail.
> 
> I'm no WSDL expert, either, but there are some folks in the Jabber/XMPP
> community who might be able to help out with that.
> 
> > Similarly, there are others in the XMLP WG who know the HTTP binding
> state
> > machine better than I do.  Your equivalent looks close enough to fool me,
> 
> > but that doesn't mean much.  Hope this is helpful, and thanks for sending
> 
> > it along!
> 
> Thanks again for the feedback. I'll be in touch again once I've
> addressed some of the open issues mentioned above.
> 
> Peter
> 
> 
>

Received on Friday, 1 April 2005 19:34:15 UTC