RE: Proposed issue text

I think we need to do all the WSDL 2.0 meps including robust in-only and
out-only.  This may include referencing or specifying the SOAP MEPs and
Bindings.  

We say the scope, and we say what the solution space could include, but
not exactly whether we or somebody else has to do it.  I'd also like to
focus on the charter wording rather than the submission of use
cases/scenarios.  I think the charter sets a mandatory low bar, which
might be exceeded by the scenarios, but I'm not sure yet.

Cheers,
dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-async-tf-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Glen Daniels
> Sent: Monday, April 11, 2005 5:45 AM
> To: Mark Nottingham
> Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Proposed issue text
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mark:
> 
> > In terms of justification, I think the issue is more
> > fundamental; the
> > WS-A charter says that we will define
> >
> > > [t]he use of these abstract message properties in the
> > context of all
> > > WSDL 1.1 or WSDL 2.0 Message Exchange Patterns, including the
> > > asynchronous use of these MEPs.
> >
> > That's pretty specific; we have to define how MAPs are used in *all*
> > MEPs asynchronously.
> >
> > The issue description can follow from this; in WSDL 1.1, we
> > we nee to
> > describe how to do Request-Response or Solicit-Response
> > asynchronously
> > with MAPs, and in WSDL 2.0 we need to be able to do In-Out,
> > In-Optional-Out, Out-In or Out-Optional-In asynchronously with MAPs.
> >
> > Because those MEPs and their bindings to particular protocols
> > need some
> > work to enable asynchrony, we have some dependancies on that
> > work being
> > done.
> 
> OK, so how about :
> 
> Our charter indicates that we must specify how the MAPs are to be used
> in order to achieve asynchrony with all WSDL 1.1 and 2.0 MEPs ([insert
> list here]).  At present there is no interoperable way to do this,
> partially due to limitations or omissions which exist in the current
> SOAP and WSDL specs.  In order for the WS-Addressing group to declare
> victory (and build a functional test suite), these
limitations/omissions
> must be remedied.
> 
> --Glen
> 
> P.S.  With regard to the MEP list above, I assume we also want to add
> Robust-In-Only to the WSDL 2.0 list.  Also, do we want to say anything
> about using MAPs as the "secret sauce" enabling Out-Only and its ilk?
>

Received on Monday, 11 April 2005 17:46:56 UTC