> This leads to some strange specifications though
> such as WS-RM, which is basically intended to fix a
> reliability issue with HTTP, and is not really 
> useful for communication protocols that are already
> reliable.

I thought the purpose of WS-RM was to specify
end-to-end reliability semantics that might cross
several communication protocols.   

This is, I believe, the same argument that advocated
TCP as an end-to-end reliable protocol, even though
some existing data link protocols already had
reliability.

> The Web of documents, as
> REST is usually called within the W3C community, may
> be great for publishing and distributing corporate
> data but not so great for updating it or securing
> access to it. 

I'm curious how the current security approaches (XML
Enc, DSig, XACML, SAML, etc.) are somehow not
applicable to HTTP and URI based schemes, particularly
considering the work SAML has done to interoperate
with HTTP with the Browser/POST profile.   Further,
TLS is a pretty solid option (except when dealing with
multiple-legacy-protocol scenarios that don't leverage
TLS).

One reason that "HTTP isn't enough" arguably is the
variety of standards out there for assertions,
authentication, authorization, etc., and the resulting
combinations that you could apply those technologies
requires some kind of interoperability profile. But
the lack of one seems to be more of a lack of will at
the WS-I rather than a technological limitation of
HTTP.  Perhaps this is the end of the discussion
(unless popular HTTP-based services start to adopt
approaches like SAML as a supplement).

HTTP's major limitations, to me, appear to be related
to its ability to handle unsolicited event
notification, lack of built-in support for retries &
duplicate detection needed for store & forward
reliability (hence WS-RM), its verbosity and
assumption of reliable transport which may not be
applicable when dealing with local area communication,
low bandwidth or extremely low-latency use cases.  

These are serious limits in some contexts (financial
trading systems, telecom switch control) but likely
not in others (business document exchange).  

Cheers
Stu


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 




------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
Something is new at Yahoo! Groups.  Check out the enhanced email design.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/SISQkA/gOaOAA/yQLSAA/NhFolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/service-orientated-architecture/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [EMAIL PROTECTED]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 



Reply via email to