Re: Signaling MEPs

On Mar 15, 2006, at 1:00 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
>
> I think either of those options are problematic because each would be
> ignored when encountered by existing agents.
>
True enough, whatever we did would only be advisory since there's no  
mU-type functionality in either of the mechanisms I suggested.

Doug Davis contacted me privately and suggested that we could also  
consider doing something inside the envelope which is an option I  
didn't mention. One thing that springs to mind is use of a  
wsa:ReplyTo with a "none" [address].

> In general, deploying MEPs which aren't compatible extensions of
> existing MEPs is problematic because of this extensibility problem.
> Had SOAP 1.2 used RFC 2774 as SOAP 1.1 did, this wouldn't be as big an
> issue.
>
Agreed, though for the case of one-way there is some evidence that  
implementations are already doing the right thing based on WSDL  
information and the WS-I basic profile so its possible that we'd be  
merely formalizing something that is already happening rather than  
adding a new capability.

> And regarding the oneway example, can I ask why it's necessary to
> indicate the oneway-ness of an interaction in the request message?
> Any other motivating examples for this practice?
>
That's not entirely clear to me either (I just took the action to  
start the conversation). One thing mentioned was to allow a receiver  
to distinguish between request-response, request-optional-response  
and one-way to enable it to follow the MEP contract accordingly.

Marc.

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.