OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

security-services message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Subject: [Action - Prateek]: Should the SOAP binding address the issue ofinter-mediaries?

This issue originates from discussions about the SOAP bindings at the f2f#4.
Though the issue makes reference to "intermediaries" the f2f discussion
focussed on reasonable and required ways to limit the scope of the SOAP
binding section.
(1) Should the SOAP binding be restricted to point-to-point interactions ?
DISCUSSION: The issue here is that most of our experience with SOAP is 
in the context of point-to-point interaction, specifically HTTP. We don't
at least I don't) understand very well the more general models based on
intermediaries. My understanding is that this is in fact one of the trickier
points under discussion in the XMLP effort.
(2) SOAP/HTTP should be mandatory-to-implement. 
DISCUSSION: SOAP/HTTP is a concrete and well understood instance 
of SOAP with a well known security model. It is a reasonable
requirement to impose on implementors and meets the inter-operability
(3) Why bother with (1) above, What is the point of giving a generic
of a point-to-point SOAP binding? Does it really support interoperability?
Should the bindings document limit itself entirely to SOAP/HTTP?
RESPOND: Yes, limit to SOAP/HTTP  /
                  No, lets keep the generic discussion of SOAP over any
point-to-point protocol
DISCUSION: I have to say that I dont see any real point to (1). It is
possible I am missing something important here.
My responses:
(1) Yes.
(2) Yes
(3) Yes, limit to SOAP over HTTP.
- prateek

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]

Powered by eList eXpress LLC