[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Interop: more precision
Will do. Thanks. -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749 -----Original Message----- From: Springer, Ian P. [mailto:ian.springer@hp.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:48 AM To: Murray, Bryan P.; Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Interop: more precision This reminds me, while going over the interop doc a couple days ago, I noticed that section 2 lists the 2004/03 wsa namespace, but it should instead list the 2003/03 namespace, since this is the version used by the versions of WSRF/WSN that are referenced by MUWS 1.0. I also recommend using "wsa03" and "wsa04" as the prefixes for the two WSA namespaces to improve readability of the doc. Another thought I had is that, for better coverage, the Correlateable Properties act should also use pbm:MatchAny and/or pbm:MatchAll in the pbm query. Ian ----- Igor, I don't understand why we need to make the following assertions: reax and indicate that S:mustUnderstand MUST not be indicated on WSA headers wsdl-soap:headers MUST NOT be decalred for any WSA headers It seems to me that normal SOAP or WSDL processing would handle these cases just fine. Also, I am not sure if it is stated or not, but we should be sure to say that endpoints must accept messages for at least the WSA versions of 2003/02 and 2004/08 of SOAP headers. Bryan ________________________________ From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:16 AM To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsdm] Interop: more precision I think to make it easier for us to interop we need to state this in the interop document: SOAP 1.1 MUST be used SOAP 1.1 over HTTP MUST be used as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383526 <http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383526> HTTP 1.1 or 1.0 MUST be used http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616 <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616> reax and indicate that S:mustUnderstand MUST not be indicated on WSA headers move up to WS-I BP 1.1 http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html <http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html> if WSDL is provided WSDL 1.1 MUST be used wsdl-soap:headers MUST NOT be decalred for any WSA headers when WSA is used to send a message Only syncronous HTTP messaaging MUST be intended i.e. wsa:ReplyTo or (wsa:From if wsa:ReplyTo is absent) MUST either be absent or indicate wsa:Address -> anonymous role URI when WSA 2004/08 version is used wsa:ReferenceParameters MUST not be included in EPRs I think this will facilitate the interop as it is all about proper composition of the standards. Too many variations may get us troubleshooting basic WS infrastructure most of the time. -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com <mailto:igor.sedukhin@ca.com> ) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsdm-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org For additional commands, e-mail: wsdm-help@lists.oasis-open.org
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]