Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present but
the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization? Think of a
request-response and the response would be returning a .GIF file. Would
you engage the optimization in the request? I would think not, but you
may expect the response to be optimized.
From: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] Behalf Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, 10, 2006 3:07 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'
Subject: RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
Jonathan,
That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
respond in the same format as the request.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com
10/10/2006 06:04 PM
To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
I don't think you answered my second, more specific, question.
I would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is generated?
Always text/xml? Always XP? Sometimes one and sometimes the other?
Based on the received message? on the phase of moon?
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com <http://www.wso2.com/>
-
<
From: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] Behalf Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, 10, 2006 2:42 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'
Subject: RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
Jonathan,
My reading of the text is that if MTM is required then an
otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional, then
both MTM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding are fine.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
10/10/2006 04:04 PM
To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
<youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the
service will reject any message not XP-encoded, and will only emit
messages in XP-encoding.
But what does "may be engaged" mean? When I send a message with
text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media type
should I expect to get back?
Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com <http://www.wso2.com/>
-
<
From: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] Behalf Arthur Ryman
Sent: Tuesday, 10, 2006 11:02 AM
To: Youenn Fablet
Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
Subject: Re: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
Youenn,
Looks good.
Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division
blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
10/10/2006 05:50 AM
To
www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org
cc
Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr
Subject
F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTM
support
within WSDL2.0.
This is a translation of the current MTM support through an
extension
element.
Regards,
Youenn
The proposal is the following:
Add a new WSDL2.0/MTM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
of the
WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.
//// WSDL Component Relationship /////
The WSDL2.0/MTM extension adds the following property to the
WSDL2.0
Endpoint, Binding, Binding , Binding Fault, Binding
Message
Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
- {optimizedMimeSerialization} PTINAL. Its type is xs:token.
When
present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM must
be
engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that
MTM
may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
use of
MTM.
The requiredness/availability of the MTM engagement is defined
by the
closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether
it is at
the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
component or
Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding
level,
the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component
level,
respectively.
//// XML Representation ////
The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTM extension is an
element
information item as follow:
<wsmtom:MimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?
xmlns:wsmtom=""
/>
This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced
attribute
(especially the wsdl:required attribute).
//// Mapping ////
The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
wsmtom:MimeSerialization element is present.
Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is
present and
equals to "true". its value is "optional".

What you're really saying I think is that the optimization ought be set
at the individual message level rather that at the operation level?

Can we do this already with the spec at it stands? I suggest keep the
proposal aligned with the status quo, whatever it is, in the interest of
moving to Rec sooner.

JJ.

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present
but the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization?
Think of a request-response and the response would be returning a .GIF
file. Would you engage the optimization in the request? I would think
not, but you may expect the response to be optimized.

*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 3:07 PM
*To:* Jonathan Marsh
*Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'
*Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Jonathan,

That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
respond in the same format as the request.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
--
*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*

10/10/2006 06:04 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
I dont think you answered my second, more specific, question. I
would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is
generated? Always text/xml? Always XP? Sometimes one and
sometimes the other? Based on the received message? on the
phase of moon?

*Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
<>

*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 2:42 PM*
To:* Jonathan Marsh*
Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'*
Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Jonathan,

My reading of the text is that if MTM is required then an
otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional,
then both MTM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding
are fine.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca

*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org

10/10/2006 04:04 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
<youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the service
will reject any message not XP-encoded, and will only emit
messages in XP-encoding.

But what does may be engaged mean? When I send a message with
text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media
type should I expect to get back?
*
Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
<>
>
>
>

*
From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 11:02 AM*
To:* Youenn Fablet*
Cc:* Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org*
Subject:* Re: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Youenn,

Looks good.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca

*Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>*
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org

10/10/2006 05:50 AM

--
To
www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org
cc
Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
Subject
F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTM support
within WSDL2.0.
This is a translation of the current MTM support through an
extension
element.
Regards,
Youenn

The proposal is the following:

Add a new WSDL2.0/MTM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
of the
WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.

//// WSDL Component Relationship /////
The WSDL2.0/MTM extension adds the following property to the WSDL2.0
Endpoint, Binding, Binding , Binding Fault, Binding Message
Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
- {optimizedMimeSerialization} PTINAL. Its type is xs:token. When
present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM must be
engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that MTM
may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
use of
MTM.

The requiredness/availability of the MTM engagement is defined by
the
closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether it
is at
the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
component or
Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding level,
the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component level,
respectively.
--
//// XML Representation ////
The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTM extension is an element
information item as follow:
<wsmtom:MimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?

xmlns:wsmtom=""/>
This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced attribute
(especially the wsdl:required attribute).

//// Mapping ////
The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
wsmtom:MimeSerialization element is present.
Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is present and
equals to "true". its value is "optional".

To further refine your statement:
- when set to optional, it makes sense to put the optimization at
the wider level, i.e. the endpoint or binding.
- when set to required, it makes sense to put the optimization at
the narrower level, i.e. the message level. Note that there are cases
(for instance a binding engaging XML Security) where required MTM
engagement at a wider scope makes also perfect sense.
This usage may be illustrated in the primer.
Youenn

Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
What you're really saying I think is that the optimization ought be
set at the individual message level rather that at the operation level?

Can we do this already with the spec at it stands? I suggest keep the
proposal aligned with the status quo, whatever it is, in the interest
of moving to Rec sooner.

JJ.

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
>Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present
>but the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization?
>Think of a request-response and the response would be returning a
>.GIF file. Would you engage the optimization in the request? I would
>think not, but you may expect the response to be optimized.
>
>>
>
>
>*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman
>*Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 3:07 PM
>*To:* Jonathan Marsh
>*Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'
>*Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>Jonathan,
>>
>That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
>respond in the same format as the request.
>>
>Arthur Ryman,
>IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>>
>blog:
>phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
>assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
>fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
>mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
>>
>>
>*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*
>>
>10/10/2006 06:04 PM
>>
>
>To
>Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
>cc
>"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
><www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
>Subject
>RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I dont think you answered my second, more specific, question. I
>would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is
>generated? Always text/xml? Always XP? Sometimes one and
>sometimes the other? Based on the received message? on the
>phase of moon?
>>
>*Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
>
><>
>>
>
>
>>
>*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
>Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 2:42 PM*
>To:* Jonathan Marsh*
>Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
>www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'*
>Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>Jonathan,
>>
>My reading of the text is that if MTM is required then an
>otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional,
>then both MTM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding
>are fine.
>>
>Arthur Ryman,
>IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>>
>blog:
>phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
>assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
>fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
>mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
>>
>*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*
>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>>
>10/10/2006 04:04 PM
>>
>
>To
>Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
><youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
>cc
>"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
><www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>
>Subject
>RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the service
>will reject any message not XP-encoded, and will only emit
>messages in XP-encoding.
>>
>But what does may be engaged mean? When I send a message with
>text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media
>type should I expect to get back?
>*
>Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
>
><>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>>
>*
>From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
>Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 11:02 AM*
>To:* Youenn Fablet*
>Cc:* Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
>www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org*
>Subject:* Re: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>Youenn,
>>
>Looks good.
>>
>Arthur Ryman,
>IBM Software Group, Rational Division
>>
>blog:
>phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
>assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
>fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
>mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
>>
>*Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>*
>Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>>
>10/10/2006 05:50 AM
>>
>
>>
>>
>To
>www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org
>cc
>Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
>Subject
>F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTM support
>within WSDL2.0.
>This is a translation of the current MTM support through an
>extension
>element.
>Regards,
>Youenn
>
>The proposal is the following:
>>
>Add a new WSDL2.0/MTM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
>of the
>WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.
>>
>//// WSDL Component Relationship /////
>The WSDL2.0/MTM extension adds the following property to the
>WSDL2.0
>Endpoint, Binding, Binding , Binding Fault, Binding Message
>Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
>- {optimizedMimeSerialization} PTINAL. Its type is xs:token. When
>present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM must be
>engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that
>MTM
>may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
>use of
>MTM.
>>
>The requiredness/availability of the MTM engagement is defined by
>the
>closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether it
>is at
>the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
>component or
>Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding
>level,
>the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component level,
>respectively.
>>
>>
>//// XML Representation ////
>The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTM extension is an element
>information item as follow:
><wsmtom:MimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?
>>
>
>xmlns:wsmtom=""/
>>
>This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced attribute
>(especially the wsdl:required attribute).
>>
>//// Mapping ////
>The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
>wsmtom:MimeSerialization element is present.
>Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is present
>and
>equals to "true". its value is "optional".
>
>>
>
>

Thinking about it a little bit more, your case may be covered by
changing the sentence:
When present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM must be
engaged.
by the following sentence:
When present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM MUST be
supported and SHULD be engaged.

I think that this change addresses your concern, although I am not very
familiar with the SHULD meaning and implications. My main fear is that
the SHULD may have different meanings for the service and the clients.
What do you think?
Youenn

Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
Is this assumption adequate though?What if the capability is present
but the sending message did not need to utilize the optimization?
Think of a request-response and the response would be returning a .GIF
file. Would you engage the optimization in the request? I would think
not, but you may expect the response to be optimized.

*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman
*Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 3:07 PM
*To:* Jonathan Marsh
*Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'
*Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Jonathan,

That isn't defined as far as I can tell. A "polite" server would
respond in the same format as the request.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca
--
*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*

10/10/2006 06:04 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>, "'Youenn Fablet'" <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
I dont think you answered my second, more specific, question I
would expect either encoding to be accepted, but what is
generated? Always text/xml? Always XP? Sometimes one and
sometimes the other? Based on the received message? on the
phase of moon?

*Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
<>

*From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 2:42 PM*
To:* Jonathan Marsh*
Cc:* 'Jean-Jacques Moreau'; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org; 'Youenn Fablet'*
Subject:* RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Jonathan,

My reading of the text is that if MTM is required then an
otherwise encoded message would be rejected. If it is optional,
then both MTM and normal XML hexBinary or base64Binary encoding
are fine.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca

*"Jonathan Marsh" <jonathan (AT) wso2 (DOT) com>*
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org

10/10/2006 04:04 PM

To
Arthur Ryman/Toronto/IBM@IBMCA, "'Youenn Fablet'"
<youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
cc
"'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>,
<www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org>
Subject
RE: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
I assume {optimizedMimeSeraizliation} = required means the service
will reject any message not XP-encoded, and will only emit
messages in XP-encoding.

But what does may be engaged mean? When I send a message with
text/xml when {optimizedMimeSerialization} = optional, what media
type should I expect to get back?
*
Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/-
<>
>
>
>

*
From:* www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org
[mailto:www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org] * Behalf *Arthur Ryman*
Sent:* Tuesday, 10, 2006 11:02 AM*
To:* Youenn Fablet*
Cc:* Jean-Jacques Moreau; www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org;
www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org*
Subject:* Re: F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
--
Youenn,

Looks good.

Arthur Ryman,
IBM Software Group, Rational Division

blog:
phone: +1-905-413-3077, TL 969-3077
assistant: +1-905-413-2411, TL 969-2411
fax: +1-905-413-4920, TL 969-4920
mobile: +1-416-939-5063, text: 4169395063 (AT) fido (DOT) ca

*Youenn Fablet <youenn.fablet (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>*
Sent by: www-ws-desc-request (AT) w3 (DOT) org

10/10/2006 05:50 AM

--
To
www-ws-desc (AT) w3 (DOT) org
cc
Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau (AT) crf (DOT) canon.fr>
Subject
F&P/MTM Alternate proposal
>
>
>
>

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Per my action item, here is an alternative proposal for MTM support
within WSDL2.0.
This is a translation of the current MTM support through an
extension
element.
Regards,
Youenn

The proposal is the following:

Add a new WSDL2.0/MTM extension within section 5 (soap binding)
of the
WSDL20 adjunct specification, along the following lines.

//// WSDL Component Relationship /////
The WSDL2.0/MTM extension adds the following property to the WSDL2.0
Endpoint, Binding, Binding , Binding Fault, Binding Message
Reference and Binding Fault Reference components:
- {optimizedMimeSerialization} PTINAL. Its type is xs:token. When
present and equal to "required", it indicates that MTM must be
engaged. When present and equal to "optional", it indicates that MTM
may be engaged. When not present, no assertion is made about the
use of
MTM.

The requiredness/availability of the MTM engagement is defined by
the
closest present property, where closeness is defined by whether it
is at
the Endpoint component level, the Binding Message Reference
component or
Binding Fault Reference component level, the Binding level,
the Binding Fault Reference level, or the Binding component level,
respectively.
--
//// XML Representation ////
The XML representation for the WSDL2.0/MTM extension is an element
information item as follow:
<wsmtom:MimeSerialization wsdl:required="true|false"?

xmlns:wsmtom=""/>
This is an empty global element that allows any namespaced attribute
(especially the wsdl:required attribute).

//// Mapping ////
The {optimizedMimeSerialization} property is present when a
wsmtom:MimeSerialization element is present.
Its value is "required" if the wsdl:required attribute is present and
equals to "true". its value is "optional".