I guess this is the opposite of "build it and they will come" = "I didn't
build it - and noone came".
DW
----- Original Message -----
From: "Matthew MacKenzie" <>
To: "'Chiusano Joseph'" <>; "'Farrukh Najmi'"
<>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:11 AM
Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
> I don't know that it matters. The two major implementations have not
really
> supported the ebMS binding, and there have not been many complaints that I
> can remember.
>
> -Matt
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 9:09 AM
> To: Farrukh Najmi;
> Subject: RE: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
>
> Just one question, from more of a "perception" perspective: Does
> removing the ebMS binding "break" anyone's perception (within or outside
> of OASIS) of an integratable ebXML framework? Does it send a negative
> message (no pun intended)? Or does it not matter whether it sends any
> type of message at all?
>
> Kind Regards,
> Joseph Chiusano
> Booz Allen Hamilton
> Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Farrukh Najmi [mailto:]
> > Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 11:49 AM
> > To:
> > Subject: [regrep] Proposed changes to ebMS Binding and HTTP Binding
> >
> >
> > 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 -It is out of date and underspecified.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)?
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Farrukh
> >
> >
> > 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/regrep/members/le
> > ave_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/regrep/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/regrep/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
