- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:16:25 -0700
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Speaking for myself, there are two things (related to async and use of ws-addressing) that I would like to get clarification on from XMLP (these things have come up before on the XMLP/WSDL/async-TF list). These two things, I don't think is "new work" but clarification on the existing SOAP-HTTP binding. 1) Does the SOAP/HTTP binding require that a SOAP envelope be sent back in the HTTP-response (for the non-failure case). See [1]. 2) Can 303 status code be used for pull-based async req-response using the existing SOAP/HTTP binding. See thread starting at [2]. Thx. -Anish -- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Nov/0005.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2004Nov/0005.html Mark Nottingham wrote: > > Mike: I'll ask on next week's telecon. > > Addressing WG: Please see below WRT WSDL's request to start a one-way > MEP; we'll discuss whether we have anything to add next week (Reply- To > set to the Addressing list to keep the cross-chatter down). > > Regards, > > > On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:35 AM, <michael.mahan@nokia.com> > <michael.mahan@nokia.com> wrote: > >> Thanks Glen, >> >> Mark, does WS-Addressing have any additional requirements or scoping >> statements to this? >> >> Thx, >> Mike >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: www-ws-cg-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-cg-request@w3.org]On >> Behalf Of ext Glen Daniels >> Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2005 1:38 PM >> To: www-ws-cg@w3.org >> Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org; public-ws-async-tf@w3.org >> Subject: Requirements for one-way MEP >> >> >> >> >> Greetings, CG: >> >> As Jonathan mentioned in [1], the WS-Description group have requested >> the specification of a one-way SOAP MEP. I believe the deliverables >> here are as follows: >> >> * A SOAP one-way MEP, which describes a simple "fire and forget" >> single-message pattern, with an appropriate URI and specification as per >> the SOAP 1.2 binding framework. >> >> * A binding of this MEP to HTTP. This may involve changing the existing >> HTTP binding, or may involve generating a new one. >> >> * A clear description of how each party (sender and receiver) determines >> which MEP is in use. >> >> The requirements for this are pretty much spelled out above, except for >> one more (fairly light/intangible one) that I would add: >> >> * Should if possible take into account the WS-I work in this area. >> >> I thought there might be more to it, but I think that's about it! If >> anyone from WSDL/async thinks there are more requirements, please chime >> in. >> >> --Glen >> >> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-cg/2005Jun/0000.html >> >> >> > > > -- > Mark Nottingham Principal Technologist > Office of the CTO BEA Systems > >
Received on Tuesday, 21 June 2005 23:16:28 UTC