RE: [wss] Issue 173 - SOAP 1.2 Deltas

["David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Lockhart [mailto:hlockhar@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:51 AM
> To: wss@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wss] Issue 173 - SOAP 1.2 Deltas
>
>
> I thought we had agreed that:
>
> 1) we would state the goal of supporting all versions of SOAP
> 2) the document normative text and examples would all be brought in
> alignment with SOAP 1.1
> 3) I would propose text for an appendix that says "what's
> different if you
> use SOAP 1.2"
>
> However, I am wondering if this is the right procedure.
>
> A) The recent threads started by Rich about this issue and by
> Irving about
> mustUnderstand contain suggestions that we are somehow
> supporting both 1.1
> and 1.2
>
> B) The spec mandates the use of "role" rather than "actor"
> which is clearly
> 1.2.
>
> C) Apparently XML Dsig (and perhaps enc as well) is
> technically undefined
> for SOAP 1.2, since 1.2 is defined in terms of an Infoset,
> but DSIG assumes
> a wire representation is specified.
>
>
> So before proposing a lot of text, I am raising the question
> of how we are
> going to handle this issue?
>

Seems to me there are at least the following options:
1) Support only SOAP 1.1
2) Support only SOAP 1.2.  This may require some wording around DSIG.
2) leave Spec as-is.  imo this leaves somewhat underdefined and conflicting
the use of soap 1.1 and 1.2 actor/role and mustUnderstand.  Perhaps
solutions then refer to ws-i bp 1.0 and/or ws-i bsp 1.0.
3) Normatively refer to ws-i BP which defines soap 1.1 actor and soap 1.1 mU
in terms of soap 1.2 role and mU.  (by ref solution)
4) Incorpate the text from ws-i BP for actor/role and mU. (by value
solution).

Is that the extent of the list of possibilities?

Cheers,
Dave