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

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

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 09:25:00 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50760A1C0@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

Testable cross-specification conformance statements are hard to write,
but here goes.

  "An endpoint which conforms to this specification understands and
  accepts SOAP messages containing headers in the wsa namespace
  targeted to it, generates reply or fault messages it may send in
  response according to the rules outlined in this specification,
  and, if the endpoint provides a WSDL description, conforms to the 
  WS-A WSDL Binding specification."

And we export the issue of precisely what conformance to the WSDL
Binding means to that spec.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Sunday, May 01, 2005 8:46 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> 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 16:25:33 GMT

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