W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:14:21 +0100
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>, David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20021101091421.GG918@w3.org>

Hi Dave.

I just realized something about the proposal that you made yesterday
in the teleconference.

* David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com> [2002-10-24 15:59-0700]
> Here's my latest wording, based upon our consensus that we should say
> something and Hal's input.
> Dear OASIS WS-Security TC,
> The W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group would like to express it's
> concern around the lack of WSDL definitions for WS-Security elements in the
> first version of the WS-Security product.  As a best practice, members of
> the
> web services architecture group believe that WSDL definitions should be part
> of any specification of SOAP Modules.  We would like to encourage the
> WS-Security group to take up this piece of work in the first version of it's
> product.  It appears that the issue is not so much the "goodness" of such a
> thing, rather the timing is the issue.  There are a variety of rationale for
> including description in v1: 1) To ensure that the runtime aspects can be
> described in a reasonable manner - it would be unfortunate if some headers
> were difficult to describe in wsdl; 2) To promote interoperability - bodies
> such as W3C and WS-I believe that interoperable descriptions are a
> requirement to interoperability.

Based on my feedback, you proposed to replace the last sentence by,
IIRC, "WSDL has an important place in both W3C's work and WS-I's Basic

I would be more specific: "WSDL 1.2 has an important place in the Web
services architecture developed at W3C, and WSDL 1.1 is a component of
WS-I's Basic Profile."

Which brings me to the point that we didn't specify a version of WSDL
to develop this description for, but I think that this is actually OK,
since it probably is too early to develop it for WSDL 1.2, but
developing it for WSDL 1.1 would give us something that should be
reasonably easy to migrate to 1.2. And saying just "WSDL" leaves the
door open for them to work with the Web Services Description Working
Group if their schedule permits.

I am copying Philippe (and David) to see if they have comments.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 04:14:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC