RE: Issue 59 alternate proposal

The proposal reflects exactly what is being agreed, what is being sent
elsewhere and what is currently debated:  
 
First bullet. You are right. Proposal addresses this bullet. . 
 
Second bullet. As far as the one-way SOAP MEP is concerned, the issue
for SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 is two separate issues. SOAP 1.1/HTTP
behaviour is addressed by WS-I BP 1.x profile and there is no
architected SOAP MEP for one way in SOAP 1.1. SOAP 1.2 one-way MEP is
needed and this has been communicated to the XMLP by our group and WSD.
We further indicated the issues with the binding to them as well. So, we
have told them our requirements, so did WSD. The proposal therefore does
not need to address one-way MEP as the consensus of the tc is being
addressed with respect to this need elsewhere. 
 
Third bullet. Response binding markup was never fully agreed on due to
the issues that I have raised, and this is what we are debating right
now as to how to address them and what additional constraints that we
may require iin the specification if we would like to support it. I will
send couple of points for this later on in response to Marc's mail in a
separate message. 
 
Thanks, 
 
--umit
 


________________________________

	From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com] 
	Sent: Wednesday, Nov 02, 2005 11:16 AM
	To: Yalcinalp, Umit
	Cc: David Orchard; Marc Hadley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Issue 59 alternate proposal
	
	
	I thought we had reached at least a rough consensus on:
	

	*	Use 202 as an HTTP response if nothing else is coming
back. 
	*	We need some kind of one-way SOAP MEP 
	*	We should add a "response bindings" markup to
usingAddressing to indicate the ways that an endpoint can send back
(async) responses. 

	I'm a little concerned to read that we've really only agreed on
one of these three.
	
	Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: 

		
		  

			-----Original Message-----
			From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
			Sent: Tuesday, Nov 01, 2005 10:06 PM
			To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Marc Hadley;
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
			Subject: RE: Issue 59 alternate proposal
			
			
			
			    

				-----Original Message-----
				From:
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
				      

			[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
			    

				request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Yalcinalp,
Umit
				      

			<snip/> 
			    

				Our proposal specifically defined how
the request-response would use
				      

			two
			    

				distinct HTTP connections, 202, etc.  
				      

			<snip/>
			
			I think it's standard practice to call how a
request response uses a
			protocol including the protocol status codes a
"binding".
			
			My concern with doing away with MEPs completely
is exactly 
			shown by this
			proposal.  
			
			Without any kind of protocol/lower level MEP, it
is impossible to talk
			about what happens with request response without
talking about a
			particular binding, in your case SOAP HTTP.  In
a binding 
			extension that
			controls interaction patterns like
usingAddressing, you end 
			up either a)
			not talking about meps/bindings/protocols at
all, which is very
			unusable, or b) talking about a specific
binding/protocol, which is
			highly undesirable from a re-use, layering,
modularity, and
			"well-factoring" perspective.  Well factored and
modularized design of
			specs is one of the tenets of the Web Services
architecture, 
			or at least
			so it's been said.
			    

		
		Dear Dave, 
		
		I am assuming that you have concerns with both proposals
as they both
		bypass the MEPs in a way.
		
		I completely agree with you in sentiment and goals.
Ideally, we could
		have accomplished this within the parameters that you
suggested.
		However, I am just trying to be practical and wearing my
product hat on.
		
		
		We have SOAP 1.1/HTTP and SOAP 1.2/HTTP. Both of them
are in scope, both
		are in practice ( AFAIK people are starting to release
implementations
		on the latter). We have a limited time to deliver
something useful that
		people can interoperate on. 
		
		We can not define MEPs for SOAP 1.1/HTTP. 
		
		The ongoing discussions at the Async TF has demonstrated
to me that
		there is not really a consensus about how to layer WSDL
MEPS and SOAP
		MEPS and the relationship between them. Among many
choices we have
		discussed, 1-m mappings, getting rid of MEPs altogether,
etc. Here we
		are. 
		 
		Either WS-Addressing wg redisgns WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0
and how this is
		done for all possible binding, etc.  or we solve the
problem with what
		we have agreed with.
		
		We spent many months in async tf. We had very good
discussion,
		discovered many issues. AFAIK, We did NOT reach
consensus. 
		
		I neither view our proposal as an example of the best
possible
		architecture there is nor will get into a debate of
		"my-architecture-is-better-than-yours" since it does not
apply ;-) but
		the reality is I personally am looking for is concrete
simple rules to
		point developers to that reflects what they got
consensus on: On the
		wire messages for async with SOAP/HTTP. It is a simple
concrete way to
		solve the problem reflecting the only consensus point we
had without
		rearchitecting the whole stack. 
		
		Hope the intention is clear. 
		
		
		  

			Cheers,
			Dave  
			    

		
		The clock is ticking, 
		
		--umit