W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2005

[lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive)

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2005 13:13:00 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507609918@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I took an AI at the FTF to in the context of Issus lc6 [1] and lc35 [2]
to start a discussion on endpoint conformance.  I'm a little vague at
this point as to what the concern with my original proposal below was.
As I recall the consolidation of conformance statements in the SOAP
Binding into a Conformance Section was not too controversial, and that
the first two paragraphs I propose were viewed by many as useful
clarifications on our existing.

So the remaining issue is the third paragraph I propose, defining the
new idea of endpoint conformance thus: 

  "An endpoint which conforms to this specification understands and 
  accepts SOAP messages containing headers in the wsa namespace targeted

  to it, and generates reply or fault messages it may send in response 
  according to the rules outlined in this specification."

>From the minutes [3] I infer there may be a couple of concerns with this
concept:

a) Should endpoint conformance require that all messages sent to the
   service must have wsa: headers in them?
b) Should endpoint conformance also require conformance to some or all 
   aspects of the WSDL Binding spec?

I'm not sure these are the right questions, but if they are my answers
are no, and no.  Endpoints which require wsa: headers are a subset of
WS-A enabled endpoints - it seems perfectly reasonable to allow the case
where a service honors but doesn't require wsa: headers.  And I think
there is a useful notion of WS-A conformance that looks just at headers
in messages coming into and out of a service and not requiring WSDL
description.

Clarifications welcome.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc6
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc35
[3] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/04/19-ws-addr-minutes.html#lc6

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of
Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:23 PM
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Subject: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive)


We don't define conformance in a clear location in the document,
although there is a suggestive statement in Section 4:

  'To ensure interoperability with a broad range of devices, all
  conformant implementations that include support for SOAP 1.1 MUST
  support the SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension.'

This statement however is a bit ambiguous as to what one is conforming
to and what it means to conform.

We suggest removing the above sentence, and replace it with an explicit
Conformance Section (new Section 7) as follows:

-----------
7. Conformance

A SOAP 1.2 message conforms to the SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Module when
it contains headers from the wsa namespace, and follows all the
constraints defined by the SOAP 1.2 Addressing 1.0 Module.

A SOAP 1.1 message conforms to the SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension
when it contains headers from the wsa namespace, and follows all the
constraints defined by the SOAP 1.1 Addressing 1.0 Extension.

An endpoint which conforms to this specification understands and accepts
SOAP messages containing headers in the wsa namespace targeted to it,
and generates reply or fault messages it may send in response according
to the rules outlined in this specification.
-----------------

Section 5 2nd paragraph states:

  'Endpoints compliant with this specification MUST include the required
  message addressing properties serialized as SOAP headers in all fault
  messages.'

For consistency, "compliant" -> "conformant".
Received on Friday, 29 April 2005 20:13:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:05 GMT