- From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:01:49 +0000
- To: public-tag-announce@w3.org
FYI... -------- Original Message -------- Subject: New TAG Issue: endPointRef-47 (was Re: New issue; WS-Addressing SOAP binding & app protocols) Resent-Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:38:31 +0000 Resent-From: www-tag@w3.org Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2005 08:35:21 +0000 From: Stuart Williams <skw@hp.com> To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> CC: www-tag@w3.org, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, mark.nottingham@bea.com References: <20050103050358.GU3676@markbaker.ca> Mark, The TAG discussed the issue that you proposed at its distributed meeting on 24th Jan [1] and decided to add a new issue to our issues list [2]. I would like it to be clear that this decision should not be seen as implicity supporting for your position or rejecting the WS-Addressing WGs position. It is an indication that the TAG would like to spend more time discussing the issue and understanding its architectural signifiance (if any) more fully. Best regards Stuart Williams On behalf of W3C TAG -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-tag/2005Jan/att-0021/tag-20050124.html#item10 [2] http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues#endPointRefs-47 Mark Baker wrote: >Hello TAG, > >I attempted to raise[1] an issue with the WS Addressing WG recently, >regarding what I felt to be a serious architectural flaw with the >WS-Addressing SOAP binding[2]. In a nutshell, it requires that the URI >in the "Address" component of a WS-Addressing EPR be serialized into a >wsa:To SOAP header, independent of the underlying protocol. IMO, a >Web-architecture consistent means of doing this would be to serialize it >to the Request-URI when using SOAP with HTTP, or the "RCPT TO:" value >when using SOAP with SMTP, etc... Unfortunately, the WG disagreed with >me that this was a problem, and declined[3] to accept it as an issue. > >I believe the reasoning that was given for the issue being declined >was flawed. It claimed that additional bindings could be defined, which >is true, but does nothing to address the issue with the SOAP binding and >its suitability for use with application protocols (indeed, one possible >resolution would be to claim that it should only be used with transport >protocols). But it's clear to me that the status quo with the SOAP >binding is inconsistent with the architecture of the Web (and the >Internet too), so I respectfully request that the TAG consider this as a >new issue. > >Thanks! And Happy New Year to all. > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/0119.html > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-addr-soap-20041208/ > [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0001.html > >Mark. > >
Received on Thursday, 27 January 2005 13:02:35 UTC