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: Thu, 12 May 2005 20:45:58 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A507898F0F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Per my AI to add a modest amount of additional clarity re SOAP vs. Core
MUST statements, here is a revised proposal for Conformance.  Though I
was considering normative references to the Core elsewhere in the
document, the simplest solution seems to be adding the references here
in the Conformance section.

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 on message addressing properties defined by the
WS-Addressing 1.0 Core and 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 on message addressing properties defined by the
WS-Addressing 1.0 Core and 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,
generates reply or fault messages it may send in response according to
the rules outlined in this specification and in the WS-Addressing 1.0
Core, and, if the endpoint provides a WSDL description, conforms to the
WS-A WSDL Binding specification.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
> Sent: Monday, May 02, 2005 12:40 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [lc6][lc35]: Clarify conformance requirements (SOAP,
> substantive)
> 
> 
> 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 Friday, 13 May 2005 03:46:04 GMT

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