RE: Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups

Hi Glen, Hi Jonathan,

I will not be able to attend the F2F in Boston due to conflict with
another engagement. Umit and Steve will be there to represent SAP's
position.

Best Regards,
Kevin
  

>-----Original Message-----
>From: public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org 
>[mailto:public-ws-async-tf-request@w3.org] 
>Sent: Friday, Feb 25, 2005 01:04 PM
>To: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
>Subject: Summary of decision tree for Addr/Desc groups
>
>
>
>The following is a series of questions which should be 
>considered a tool
>for the WS-Description and WS-Addressing groups to use in considering
>the plans/actions necessary in order to support various "asynchronous"
>use cases as discussed by the async task force.  The use-cases we've
>been discussing can be found on the archives of the task force 
>list [1].
>These questions are divided into SOAP-related, WSDL-related, and
>Addressing-related "buckets".
>
>* The SOAP layer
>
>Q. It seems a new SOAP MEP (one-way) is very likely needed.  
>Alternately
>it *might* be possible to simply alter the request-response 
>MEP in order
>to support the possibility of a "null" response envelope.  Does this
>work need to happen?
> Q. Who should do this work?
>  a. XMLP group
>  b. WSDL group
>  c. Addr group
>
>Q. Regardless of its technical feasibility, it's pretty clear that no
>one yet implements a "polling" style callback using HTTP as 
>described by
>Marc in [2].  Do we want to try to encourage this pattern?  If so:
>  Q. Where should the work be done to describe it?
>   a. Errata to SOAP spec
>   b. Separate note
>  Q. how do we indicate in the WSDL that this is available/used?
>  Q. Does this change the SOAP MEP, or is it still a SOAP req/resp?
>
>Q. Assuming both of the above affect the SOAP 1.2 spec(s), can the
>changes be published as "errata" so as not to cause a full 
>release cycle
>of the spec(s)?
>
>* The WSDL layer
>
>The essential question at the WSDL layer is "what, if anything, do we
>need to change in WSDL (both 2.0 and 1.1) to enable the important
>use-cases that fall under the general heading of 'async'".  This breaks
>down into two categories - actual changes to WSDL core, and extensions.
>Clearly WSDL core changes (for 2.0 at least) need to happen under the
>auspices of the WSDL group.  Extensions could be built either by the
>WSDL group or the Addressing group (and "who does the work" is 
>therefore
>an implicit secondary question to each of the ones in this section).
>
>So here are some questions (these do not necessarily presuppose
>solutions):
>
>Q. Do we want to enable/support the case where a single WSDL
>operation/MEP (request/response, say) can bind to multiple SOAP MEPs?
>(i.e. the seemingly-common use case where the request comes in on one
>HTTP interaction with a <replyTo>, and the response goes out in another
>transport interaction (either HTTP or otherwise))
>
> Q. Do we want to enable/support the above with multiple transports?
>(req is HTTP, resp is SMTP)
>
> Q. Do we feel the pattern/transports for the above need to be locked
>down in the WSDL (i.e. all binding details except the actual 
>address(es)
>are specified), or do we want to enable/support "floating" 
>bindings (for
>which runtime EPRs may change the transport/binding details)?
>
>Q. Whether or not we choose to move forward with asynchronously binding
>single WSDL operations/MEPs, should we consider some form of
>standardized extension in order to indicate a correlation between
>multiple WSDL operations?  This would enable, for instance, a WSDL
>in-only operation to be treated as a request, and a separate out-only
>operation to be treated (somehow) as a correlated response.
>
>Q. Assuming we do NOT want to move forward with any of the above work,
>does anything in WSDL as it stands prevent/hinder others (or our future
>selves) from using extensions to WSDL 1.1 / 2.0 to achieve these cases?
>
>* The WS-Addressing layer
>
>Nothing obvious came up which involved changes to the 
>WS-Addressing core
>beyond the work that the WS-Addressing group might take on as a result
>of the stuff above.  So this layer simply contains the question:
>
>Q. Does anything need to be done to the WSAddr spec(s) to enable this
>stuff?
>
>---------
>
>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/
>[2]
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-async-tf/2005Feb/
>0005.html
>
>---------
>
>Please take a look at the above (a work in progress, to be sure) and
>send thoughts/comments/additions.  My plan is to send this to both
>groups Sun eve, with further discussion to take place on Mon before our
>presentation to the Addr group on Tuesday and the WSDL group later in
>the week.
>
>Thanks,
>--Glen
>
>

Received on Friday, 25 February 2005 22:04:31 UTC