Scott,
Awesome, thanks. (If anyone remembers anything further
from the call, feel free to throw it in the pot, of course). My personal feel is that there are 3
issues that we keep hearing about:
1) Soap with
Attachments and the interoperability there.
2) Security in some
manner.
3) Hashtables. (I’m going to keep beating this
drum)
It looks like number 2
is covered in your list, though it’s very HTTP specific, and I would like to see
more transport independent measures.
How many people implement their own HTTP
layer? We do, but I don’t believe
that’s common. Do we really need a
face to face discussion to make sure that our HTTP implementations talk to each
other correctly?
I know that Microsoft
isn’t planning on implementing SwA, but I think the
vendors who *are* implementing it
should do some testing, even if Microsoft won’t participate. I recently ran into an issue between
XMLBus and GLUE, which points to an error in the WSDL
spec. (the MIME binding examples don’t have a name attribute on the mime parts,
but the schema for the mime parts says that it’s required.) Things like this should be addressed via
this group.
Number 3 is probably
not going to happen, but like I said, I’m going to keep beating this drum, as I
think it’s something that people will attempt to use, and a hash is a common
data structure. Some others have
seen this as an issue, and added echoMap to their
implementations of the round 2 tests. (Causing lots of errors on the consoles of
those of us who don’t implement this method.
:P)
Those three are all
things I’d like to see tested,
--Wes
-----Original
Message-----
From: Scott Seely
[mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent:
To:
soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders]
con
call
*************WARNING****************
The
following is from memory. I will not be held accountable for much, other than
saying “Yup, you remember things differently”. You have been
warned.
***********END
WARNING**************
1.
WSDL testing is
targeted
2.
Security Interop via
Digest, Basic, and SSL is added to the list of things to
test.
3.
Plans are to finish
up any testing that was still in progress at the last F2F.
4.
Sam Ruby has reserved
the facility in Almaden for June 3-4. He will follow up with more details
soon.
Close
enough?
-----Original
Message-----
From: Wes Moulder
[mailto:wes@themindelectric.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 12:18
PM
To:
soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con
call
Scott,
I was
unable to participate in the conference call on Thursday. Is it possible
for someone to post an overview of what was
discussed?
--Wes
-----Original
Message-----
From: Scott Seely
[mailto:sseely@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2002 2:19
PM
To:
soapbuilders@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [soapbuilders] 9-May-2002 con
call
During Thursday's
concall, I suggested adding Digest authentication to
the testing matrix. The good news is that everyone agreed to
it. The bad
news is that one
participant on the call mentioned something about
passing the digest auth information via the SOAP message. I
was a bit
flummoxed by this and
didn't respond immediately. Let me state now that
I do not want to encourage Interop amongst implementations by
defining a
non-standard way of
passing a nonce and authentication info. What I want
to see is that the various SOAP implementations are able to
take
advantage of HTTP Digest
Authentication the same way that most can take
advantage of HTTP Basic Authentication + SSL today. I don't
think the
group should be working on
WS-Security type Interop for the June F2F.
Agreed?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
on-topic.
To unsubscribe from
this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo!
Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to
discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay
on-topic.
To unsubscribe from
this group, send an email to:
soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com