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

RE: Latest cut at ws-arch to oasis ws-security tc on wsdl defs

From: Husband, Yin-Leng <Yin-leng.Husband@hp.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Nov 2002 09:51:45 +1100
Message-ID: <AA62447DB04E5A4DB580858FD05C26E3030319DB@SNOEXC01.asiapacific.cpqcorp.net>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

David,

Change looks good to me too.

Another possible wordsmithing point, in the sentence:
>We don't think it appropriate to venture into your domain and make a
recommendation as the extent of descriptions that should be provided
- such as trusted authorities, etc.

I am not sure if you intended "make a recommendation on" instead of
"as"; or whether you've dropped out some words at the end of the
sentence.

Yin Leng


-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]

Sent: Saturday, 2 November 2002 5:06 AM
To: 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Latest cut at ws-arch to oasis ws-security tc on wsdl defs



Looks great to me.

On the typo/wordsmithing front, WSDL needs to be capitalized at the end
of the first list point.  Second paragraph, "recommendation as TO".
Next sentence, "it is our opinion" (no "of").

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:50 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Latest cut at ws-arch to oasis ws-security tc on wsdl defs



Please review the following, your comments welcome but also hopefully
this will be the last version before it goes to the oasis ws-security
tc.

Dear OASIS WS-Security TC,

The W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group would like to express
its 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 its 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.  The
importance of WSDL for interoperability is evident by the prominent
place that WSDL has in the W3C Web Services Activity and the WS-I Basic
Profile.

We were made aware of the significant range of possible description.  We
don't think it appropriate to venture into your domain and make a
recommendation as the extent of descriptions that should be provided
- such as trusted authorities, etc.However, it is of our opinion, though
we could easily be mistaken, that a simple description of the required
WS Security elements in a given message is probably doable in a
reasonably short time frame.  We are certainly not advocating a large
(year or more) delay in schedule.

On behalf of the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group, Dave
Orchard
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:55:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT