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 10:50:35 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50760A375@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I was trying to suck in all the rules of the spec without enumerating
them all, by saying "and generates reply or fault messages it may send
in response according to the rules outlined in this specification."
Don't the cases you mention fall under this umbrella?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 9:49 AM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> 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 17:51:01 GMT

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