[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
I fully support it. It makes sense. Duane Farrukh Najmi wrote: > > 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 -It is out of date and underspecified.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)? > -- *********** Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/ Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa ***********
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]