I fully support it. It makes sense.
Duane
Farrukh Najmi wrote:
>
> Here is a breath of fresh air. I am for once proposing reducing scope
> instead of increasing it for 3.0 specs :-)
>
> 1. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop the ebMS
> binding from the RS spec for the following reasons:
>
> -It is out of date and underspecified. In its current form of
> specificity and accuracy it is unimplementable.
>
> -It would take major work to align it with ebMS 3.0 and define
> template CPAs for registry and client
>
> 2. Based on implementation experience I think we should drop bindings
> for all registry protocol methods that require HTTP POST from ebRS for
> the following reasons:
>
> -Sending protocol messages over HTTP POST without SOAP is pointless
> since we need to duplicate functionality of the SOAP Header. This is
> very non-standard in other similar specifications.
>
> -SOAP Binding is already supporting any such protocol messages over
> HTTP POST
>
> -It is not good to have two similar but different ways of implementing
> the same protocol
>
> Note that one side effect of (2) is that we can now remove the
> SignatureList element from RegistryRequestType and
> RegistryResponseType since they were there to carry signatures when
> there was no SOAP envelope (totally non-standard practice).
>
> I have discussed this with Matt who is an expert on both issues and he
> supported my proposal.
>
> Does any one have any objections to above proposals (1) and (2)?
>
--
***********
Senior Standards Strategist - Adobe Systems, Inc. - http://www.adobe.com
Vice Chair - UN/CEFACT Bureau Plenary - http://www.unece.org/cefact/
Chair - OASIS eb SOA TC - http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=ebsoa
***********
