Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding

[Farrukh Najmi <Farrukh.Najmi@Sun.COM>]

Here is a breath of fresh air. I am for once proposing reducing scope 
instead of increasing it for 3.0 specs :-)

1. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop the ebMS 
binding from the RS spec for the following reasons:

-It is out of date and underspecified. In its current form of 
specificity and accuracy it is unimplementable.

-It would take major work to align it with ebMS 3.0 and define template 
CPAs for registry and client

2. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop bindings 
for all registry protocol methods that require HTTP POST from ebRS for 
the following reasons:

-Sending protocol messages over HTTP POST without SOAP is pointless 
since we need to duplicate functionality of the SOAP Header. This is 
very non-standard in other similar specifications.

-SOAP Binding is already supporting any such protocol messages over HTTP 
POST

-It is not good to have two similar but different ways of implementing 
the same protocol

Note that one side effect of (2) is that we can now remove the 
SignatureList element from RegistryRequestType and RegistryResponseType 
since they were there to carry signatures when there was no SOAP 
envelope (totally non-standard practice).

I have discussed this with Matt who is an expert on both issues and he 
supported my proposal.

Does any one have any objections to above proposals (1) and (2)?

-- 
Regards,
Farrukh