RE: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution (apparently)

I agree the minutes are a bit confusing.  Just as background, the full set
of options that are worth considering (document status aside) are:

  a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
  b. robust-in-only -> SOAP response
  c. robust-in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)
  d. in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
  e. in-only -> SOAP response
  f. in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)

I assume the minutes should record that we approved a and d.  I don't think
c makes any sense, or that f is practically possible.  But b and e also seem
reasonable.

Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:16 AM
> To: WSD Public
> Subject: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution
> (apparently)
> 
> 
> I'd like to reopen CR144.
> 
> Youenn's initial request was to add the following mappings:
> a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional response (SOAP 1.2 Second
> Edition)
> b. in-only -> SOAP 1-way (Working Draft)
> 
> It seems the WG decided instead:
> c. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
> d. in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
> 
> This is quite a substantial difference.
> 
> a+b seems to make more sense in the long run, but cannot be implemented
> now (WD + SE).
> 
> c+d seems like an interim, moderately attractive solution.
> 
> (Am I missing something obvious?)
> 
> So my question is: do we really want to implement c+d now or should we
> proceed with no-action instead?
> 
> JJ.