RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41

Hi Chris,

Thanks.

Stuart

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher Ferris [mailto:chris.ferris@sun.com]
> Sent: 12 March 2002 14:50
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org; www-wsa-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41
> 
> 
> Nor is the WSAWG chartered to *provide* "the one". At best,
> WSAWG might determine that "one" would be a "good thing(tm)".
> Of course, it is clear that there are different use cases
> which may require different solutions/approaches.
> 
> That being said, I've forwarded this to www-wsa-comments@w3.org
> to ensure that it is logged as an issue with XMLP WG as
> originator.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Chris
> 
> 
> Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> 
> >  Stuart,
> >  I think you should forward your email to the WS-architecture WG 
> > because IMHO the XMLP WG doesn't need to provide "the one 
> > standard extension" for this problem (and many other). 8-)
> >  Best regards,
> > 
> >                    Jacek Kopecky
> > 
> >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
> >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002, Williams, Stuart wrote:
> > 
> >  > Jacek, Amr,
> >  > 
> >  > I think we have to say that SOAP 1.2 does not provide 
> *any* normative means
> >  > to identify the target "program, service or object". 
> However, SOAP
> >  > extensibility, specifically the ability to define the 
> syntax and semantics
> >  > of SOAP extension headers, enables the definition of 
> SOAP extensions that
> >  > may provide such means.
> >  > 
> >  > Personally, in the long run I think we have to give 
> app-designers *one*
> >  > standardised extension to do this kind of thing. Giving 
> too many to choose
> >  > from threatens interoperability and giving none 
> threatens interoperability
> >  > because in the absense of any guidance folks will roll their own.
> >  > 
> >  > Regards
> >  > 
> >  > Stuart
> >  > 
> >  > > -----Original Message-----
> >  > > From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> >  > > Sent: 08 March 2002 16:29
> >  > > To: amr.f.yassin@philips.com
> >  > > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> >  > > Subject: Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41
> >  > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > >  Amr,
> >  > >  I prefer solution 2. In some cases putting the target 
> URI in the
> >  > > envelope may be undesirable (security considerations, for
> >  > > example) or even impossible (when the source does not 
> know/care 
> >  > > where exactly the message goes after reaching some 
> intermediary).
> >  > >  Even WS-Routing by Microsoft, for example, does not make it 
> >  > > mandatory for the source to specify the final target, 
> although it 
> >  > > is possible.
> >  > >  Best regards,
> >  > > 
> >  > >                    Jacek Kopecky
> >  > > 
> >  > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
> >  > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> >  > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > 
> >  > > On Fri, 8 Mar 2002 amr.f.yassin@philips.com wrote:
> >  > > 
> >  > >  > Jacek,
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > Shall we add it to the core or make it optional?
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > Solution 1: (Add it to the core)
> >  > >  > "Modify (Part 1 Section 7: Use of URI in SOAP) to 
> reflect that the 
> >  > >  > envelope SHOULD include the target URIs especially if the 
> >  > > application uses 
> >  > >  > intermediaries and make it part of the XMLP core."
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > Solution 2: (Make it application dependent)
> >  > >  > "It is the responsibility of the application designer to 
> >  > > provide the 
> >  > >  > appropriate target URIs at the appropriate points of the 
> >  > > message path, or 
> >  > >  > of a routing extension, not of the SOAP core."
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > What do you think?
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > Amr Yassin
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
> >  > >  > 03/07/2002 02:37 PM
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >  
> >  > >  >         To:     AMR F Yassin/BRQ/RESEARCH/PHILIPS@AMEC
> >  > >  >         cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org
> >  > >  >         Subject:        Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41
> >  > >  >         Classification: 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >  Amr, 
> >  > >  >  I'm afraid the text you quote does not address the 
> issue. I 
> >  > >  > think the proposal should rather be to say: 
> >  > >  >  "While the target URI is not normatively in the 
> envelope, if an 
> >  > >  > application uses intermediaries, it must configure somehow 
> >  > >  > (either statically or using dynamic routing 
> protocol) the message 
> >  > >  > path. Part of this configuration is the successive 
> target URIs. 
> >  > >  > Therefore it is the responsibility of the 
> application designer to 
> >  > >  > provide the appropriate target URIs at the 
> appropriate points of 
> >  > >  > the message path, or of a routing extension, not of 
> the SOAP 
> >  > >  > core."
> >  > >  >  What'dya think? 8-)
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >                    Jacek Kopecky
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >                    Senior Architect, Systinet 
> (formerly Idoox)
> >  > >  >                    http://www.systinet.com/
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > On Thu, 7 Mar 2002 amr.f.yassin@philips.com wrote:
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >  > Hi,
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > I was assigned to write down a proposal to 
> resolve issue 41. 
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > <Issue_41>
> >  > >  >  > The target (program, service or object) URI (TBD) is 
> >  > > not mentioned in 
> >  > >  > any 
> >  > >  >  > normative way in the SOAP envelope. While this does not 
> >  > > conflict with 
> >  > >  > the 
> >  > >  >  > requirements, I believe it's an important (and possibly 
> >  > > debatable) 
> >  > >  >  > decision. This decision precludes sending an RPC 
> >  > > invocation through an 
> >  > >  >  > intermediary that uses different protocol bindings for 
> >  > > sending and 
> >  > >  >  > receiving XP messages. [1]
> >  > >  >  > </Issue_41>
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > Proposal:
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > I propose to close this issue since it was addressed in 
> >  > > Part 1 section 
> >  > >  > 2.1 
> >  > >  >  > and 2.2
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > <Sec_2.1>
> >  > >  >  > A SOAP node can be the initial SOAP sender, the 
> >  > > ultimate SOAP receiver, 
> >  > >  > or 
> >  > >  >  > a SOAP intermediary, in which case it is both a SOAP 
> >  > > sender and a SOAP 
> >  > >  >  > receiver.
> >  > >  >  > ...
> >  > >  >  > A SOAP node MUST be identified by a URI
> >  > >  >  > </Sec_2.1>
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > <Sec_2.2>
> >  > >  >  > In processing a SOAP message, a SOAP node is said to 
> >  > > act in one or more 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >  > SOAP roles, each of which is identified by a URI known 
> >  > > as the SOAP role 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  >  > name. 
> >  > >  >  > </Sec_2.2>
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  >  > ________________________________________
> >  > >  >  > Amr Yassin      <amr.f.yassin@philips.com>
> >  > >  >  > Research Member
> >  > >  >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > >  > 
> >  > > 
> >  > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 06:16:38 UTC