Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41

Strongly in favor of #2...not in the SOAP core.  Thanks.

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







amr.f.yassin@philips.com
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
03/08/02 11:29 AM

 
        To:     Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
        cc:     xml-dist-app@w3.org, (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        Re: Draft Resolution for Issue 41


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 Friday, 8 March 2002 13:05:55 UTC