W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2006

RE: Conformance points

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 15:31:04 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E80230D846@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
I promised a stab at a concrete proposal:

 

Add a new section:


6 Conformance


An endpoint reference whose wsa:Metadata element has among its children
the elements defined in [2.1 Referencing WSDL Metadata from an EPR]
conforms to this specification if it obeys the structural constraints
defined in that section.

A WSDL description conforms to this specification when it incorporates
directly or indirectly one or more of the [3.1 wsaw:UsingAddressing
Extension Element] or the [3.3 WSDL SOAP Module] markers, and obeys the
structural constraints defined in section [3 Indicating the use of
Addressing] appropriate to that marker, and those defined in section
[4.2 Action].

An endpoint conforms to this specification if it has a conformant WSDL
description associated with it, and receives and emits messages in
accordance with the constraints defined in sections [4 Specifying
Message Addressing Properties in WSDL] and [5 WS-Addressing and WSDL
Message Exchange Patterns].

 

Comments welcome.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Marsh
Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:28 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Conformance points

 

I have an action [1] to detail what I think are the implied conformance
points in regard to issue LC124 [2].

 

My understanding is that the spec defines a menu of options from which
to choose.  Conformance to the spec doesn't imply that a processor
(whatever that may be) makes use of (either as producer or consumer) all
of the options.

 

The options are implicitly split up into orthogonal features as follows:

*	2.1 Referencing WSDL Metadata from an EPR.  Further you could
imagine using wsaw:InterfaceName but not wsaw:ServiceName and so forth,
so there may be a finer granularity within this section.
*	2.2 Embedding WSDL Metadata in an EPR.
*	3.1 UsingAddressing Extension.  Implies support for Anonymous
and all of Section 4 ?.
*	3.2 Anonymous Element when used outside UsingAddressing.
*	3.3 WSDL SOAP Module.  Implies support for Anonymous and all of
Section 4 ?.
*	4.2 Action when used outside UsingAddressing
*	4.3 Reference Parameters  when used outside UsingAddressing

 

Section 5 restates explicitly information inferred by the Core
specification, and therefore isn't something you'd necessarily conform
to separately than the Core.

 

Except for clarifying the tie of UsingAddressing to Section 4 I'm not
sure adding explicit conformance statements for these optional elements
is necessary.

 

For UsingAddressing it would be nice to clarify whether conformance to
wsaw:UsingAddressing or the WSDL SOAP Module means that each MUST (MUST
NOT, etc.) in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4 is followed.

 

P.S. There aren't any explicit uses of MUST in section 4, which is
probably just an editorial oversight.

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc124

 

 

 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][  jmarsh@microsoft.com
<mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com>   ][  http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes
<http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes>   ]

 
Received on Monday, 10 April 2006 22:31:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:12 GMT