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 12:40:02 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50760A5E4@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

You mean:

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

So, it would not be a conformance requirement, absent a published WSDL,
that an endpoint follow the rules for constructing replies?  Doesn't
seem desirable.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:14 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> The SOAP binding spec does not say anything about generating reply or
> fault messages (although it does define faults). Perhaps we should
> move
> the part about 'generates reply or fault messages ..." to the "...
> conforms to the WS-A WSDL Binding ..." part (or remove it all
> together).
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> > 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 19:40:39 GMT

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