MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Use of SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 - Comments please
Title: RE: [ebxml-msg] Use of SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 - Comments please
Agree - for alignment with underlying WS standards, I think we have a stronger case with sticking to current WS-I profiles.
Even if a new WS-I profile with MTOM and SOAP 1.2 shows up in the next 6 months, would we be better of by having anticipated the use of SOAP 1.2 and MTOM? I bet that even if we base ebMS 3.0 on these specifications today, probability it complies with this future profile is ~0.02... and an adjustment (3.x) based on these same specs would be embarrassing, and probably not backward compatible anyway.
There are already several questions to answer when considering WS-I BP 1.1, AP, BSP compliance, that I have outlined in a previous mail last summer. I'll expand on these if I can be sure we go that way for ebMS 3.0.
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Turpin [mailto:jturpin@cyclonecommerce.com]
Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 8:38 AM
To: ian.c.jones@bt.com
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ebxml-msg] Use of SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 - Comments please
I think SOAP 1.1 might make more sense at this point, since we were hoping
to get a draft out by the end of the year.
Jeff
On 11/1/04 9:27 AM, "Matthew MacKenzie" <mattm@adobe.com> wrote:
> I am in favor of sticking with SOAP 1.1, unless someone has a really
> compelling argument. My sense of SOAP 1.2 support is that we were doing
> it just because it was there.
>
> It may make sense to roll 1.2 migration into MTOM/XOP consideration in
> 3.(n > 0).
>
> -matt
>
> On 1-Nov-04, at 11:22 AM, ian.c.jones@bt.com wrote:
>
>> Use of SOAP 1.1 & SOAP 1.2 - Comments please
>>
>> During a recent call the discussion of packaging of "attachments"
>> carried as part of an ebXML message identified the current position of
>> SOAP 1.2 having no approved or supported "attachments" mechanism.
>> This lead to a wider discussion on the migration to using SOAP 1.2 as
>> a component of ebXML messaging version 3.0.
>>
>> The following issues and comments were identified:-
>> WS-I is focused on SOAP 1.1 profiles. ( We wish to be close to or
>> compatible with WS-I profiles to aid interoperability.)
>> WS-I basic security profile is only defined for SOAP 1.1.
>> WS-Security 2004 (SOAP with attachments) is SOAP 1.1 only.
>> Tool support for development and use of SAOP 1.2 are limited.
>> Lack of SOAP 1.2 approved "Attachmate" specification (MTOM) approval -
>> this is expect soon, but its suitability must bee assessed once the
>> final version is available.
>> Lack of deployed architectures supporting SOAP 1.2
>>
>> Due to all of the above consideration is being given to reverting the
>> existing position of moving to use SOAP 1.2 as part of ebXML messaging
>> version 3.0 messaging and stay with SOAP 1.1 as used in ebXML
>> messaging version 2.0.
>>
>> We invite all comments and discussion on this vital topic and wish to
>> hear and understand all views form interested parties
>>
>>
>> Thak you
>>
>> Ian Jones
>> Chair OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC
>>
>> Email: ian.c.jones@bt.com
>>
>>
>>
>> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
>> of the OASIS TC), go to
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/
>> leave_workgroup.php.
>>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the
> OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup
> .php.
>
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-msg/members/leave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]