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

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

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 09:49:07 -0700
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <42765A03.7000405@tibco.com>

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>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.  
>
I like those answers, but I'm not sure how they square with section 3's 
statement that wsa:ReplyTo (and not just the abstract [reply endpoint]) 
"MUST be present if a reply is expected" and the existence of a fault 
for a missing MAP.  Isn't a conformant request/reply endpoint required 
to fault if there is no wsa:ReplyTo header?

On a somewhat related note, wsa:MessageID is required if either 
wsa:ReplyTo or wsa:FaultTo is present, though I'm not sure why, 
particularly if the reply and fault endpoints are anonymous.  I would 
assume that "This element MUST be present if wsa:ReplyTo or wsa:FaultTo 
is present." means that a conformant endpoint MUST fault if it's not 
there but one or both of the others is.

Perhaps we should clarify the text?

>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 16:49:18 GMT

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