W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > February 2002

DR039 [was Web Services Description: Requirements]

From: Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:07:16 -0800
Message-ID: <2E33960095B58E40A4D3345AB9F65EC1054D9232@win-msg-01.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
David, thanks for the feedback! I'll tackle one issue per thread for

Regarding DR039 "Must be able to describe simple request-response-fault
message exchange", I was thinking of the original request and a matching
response, whether that response is a "correct" response or a SOAP Fault

I omitted the solicit-response pattern, but I see that it's covered by


-----Original Message-----
From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org] 
Sent: Monday, February 11, 2002 1:01 PM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: Re: Web Services Description: Requirements

At 06:11 PM 2/8/2002 -0800, you wrote:
>One of the first activities of the W3C Web Services Description Working

>Group is to draft a set of requirements and scenarios for the working 
>group. Per our first teleconference, below is a draft list of 
>requirements; the list is an individual contribution -- it does not 
>reflect any decisions of the working group -- all mistakes are mine.
>Please review the list and provide feedback.
>. . .
>Must be able to describe simple one-way messages, i.e., either incoming

>or outgoing (event) messages.
>Must be able to describe simple request-response-fault message 
>(Not a requirement to describe arbitrary message exchanges.)

Not sure what you mean by "fault" here.
Also, did you mean to include both request-response and solicit-response

exchanges (as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_porttypes )?

>Must be able to describe sets of messages that form a logical group 
>(i.e., a port type).
>Must be able to derive a port type from another by extension of the 
>logical group of messages.

Do you mean creating a new port type from another by adding more message

>. . .
>Must be able to describe endpoint location using URIs.
>Must be able to describe address for specific port instances within a 
>Must be able to separate design-time from run-time information.

What do you mean by "design-time" and "run-time" in relation to

>. . .
>Compliance must not preclude building implementations that are 
>resistant to attacks.

This sounds like a fairly weak requirement.  Can it be stronger?

David Booth
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 18:10:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:36 UTC