Re: [ebxml-msg] RE: pending issues

[Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@Sun.COM>]

I'm putting the finishing touches on WD 10, for publication later
today, but have several concerns:

A. Issue #7: It is not clear why mustUnderstand has been lumped in
   with actor/role, as they are unrelated; mention of mustUnderstand
   remains necessary.  I propose to take your (Jacques') suggestion
   from Jan 10 email:

   > Section 5.1.3.8 on SOAP mustUnderstand reads too much like a
   > tutorial.  Reword it by simply stating that this attribute is
   > required on eb:Messaging header, and must have value "1".

B. Issue #18 (SOAP Binding, Section 11-Old vs. Section 12-New).
   Griping about standards processes (or lack thereof) and
   rationalization of our direction in Section 12 (lines 3533-3554 in
   WD 08) is unnecessary.  We need to specify, clearly and concisely,
   exactly what we expect implementers to do, not why.  Propose to
   strike these lines.

   The proposal to remove Section 11 would leave us with no normative
   statements as to proper use of HTTP(S)/SMTP.  (Sections 12.2 & 12.3
   contain only examples, not specifications of the bindings.)  If the
   argument is that [SOAP 1.1 + WS-I BP (+ SwA)] or [SOAP 1.2 +
   Adjuncts (+ SwA)], in addition to the HTTP, SMTP and related RFCs
   contain all the detail necessary, then we should make such a
   statement.  Still skeptical of the claim that there aren't any
   options in these specs that we need to address in ebMS, and that
   all of the detailed guidance presented in Section 11 should be
   removed.

   The correct media type for a SOAP 1.2 document is
   "application/soap+xml"; not "text/xml", as it is for SOAP 1.1.

   (Minor) The HTTP & SMTP examples should contain all required
   headers, not just the ebMS-specific ones, to avoid confusion.

and finally,

C. Issue #10 (Security Section): I will capture Ric's March 02
   preliminary list of security requirements, but it is unclear at the
   moment exactly what the effect will be on the text and examples
   in Sections 6.2-6.7.

--Pete

Thus spoke Jacques Durand (JDurand@us.fujitsu.com) on Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 04:12:32AM -0800:
> Please take the draft Hamid posted as just a consolidation of current
> proposals to current issues on the table (some proposals were easier to
> review in the form of their final effect on the spec draft). So these still
> need be reviewed. The proposal for Security section reduction (Hamid) is
> issue #10 and I recall that there was an informal agreement on the need to
> do some updates in that direction - though no detailed proposal was made
> yet. So here it is to discuss... (and apparently to modify).
>
> ...

> 7) remove sections related to SOAP actors:
> In Part 1:
> - Remove sections 5.1.3.8 , 5.1.3.9, 5.1.3.10 about SOAP actors &
> mustUnderstand, 
> as the related topologies that such actors
> support are relevant to Part 2. (see proposed changes for Section 3 below)
> 
> In Part II:
> - introduce the additional topologies that are handled.
> - address the routing issue for MEPs in a more generic way, and add SOAP
> actors as needed.
> 
> STATUS: agreed. Issue 8 takes care of scoping Part 1 to remove needs 
> for handling intermediaries.
> 
> EDIT: TO DO (Part 1)

> 10) Security:
> - too many examples that may not add value, redundant with WSS examples?
> - Ric notes that the security examples are incorrect, where the references
> are supposed to be to the SOAP Body, but instead contain a cid:xxx.
> 
> STATUS: Agreed in general. Needs detailed proposal.

> 18) 
> Insert SOAP 1.2 binding Appendix. 
> Remove previous Appendix 11.
> 
> STATUS: SOAP 1.2 latest agreed. Appendix 11 removal to be discussed /
> confirmed.
> no general objection.
> 
> EDIT: ?

-- 
Pete Wenzel <pete.wenzel@sun.com>
Sun Microsystems SOA & Business Integration
Standards & Product Strategy
+1 (626)471-6311, Sun x61311, US-Pacific TZ