RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41

I have to agree with Stuart on this one - it is important that we nail down
the standard as much as possible to prevent the TIFF fiasco from happening
again.  Solution (2) appeals to me, as this doesn't feel like part of the
core but rather an extension.  However, the implication of nailing it down
implies that somebody has to specify said extension...

Regards,

Pete Appleton
Information Systems Controller, Bemis Packaging Limited
pmappleton@bemis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
Sent: 08 March 2002 17:57
To: 'Jacek Kopecky'; amr.f.yassin@philips.com
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft Resolution for Issue 41


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 Tuesday, 12 March 2002 10:01:02 UTC