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

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

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 1 May 2005 23:45:44 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE5FE48B6.F7D77460-ON85256FF5.001438E0-85256FF5.0014AB09@us.ibm.com>

If an endpoint publishes its WSDL description (by whatever mechanism), we
should assume that the values of the Action IRIs it accepts are defined as
indicated by the WSA WSLD binding spec. My impression is that "WSA
conformance" of the endpoint includes this aspect as well.

Of course, the endpoint need not have a WSDL description at all, but if it
does and makes it public then it is bound by it.

Paco



                                                                                                                                               
                      "Jonathan Marsh"                                                                                                         
                      <jmarsh@microsoft.com>          To:       <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                                  
                      Sent by:                        cc:                                                                                      
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP, substantive)              
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                              
                                                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                               
                      04/29/2005 04:13 PM                                                                                                      
                                                                                                                                               





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 Monday, 2 May 2005 03:45:51 GMT

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