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

RE: wsdl extensions

From: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
Date: 05 Nov 2002 10:00:10 -0500
To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1036508411.25102.217.camel@jfouffa>

On Mon, 2002-11-04 at 18:59, Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> How would a registration authority (on top of the self-managed URI space
> we leverage now) increase interoperability?  Is there not already an
> organization (WS-I) dedicated to mitigating the effects of extensibility
> on interop by placing brands and testing methodology around sets of
> specifications and their extensions?

Ensuring interoperability is one thing, defining the set of extensions
is an other. I won't argue regarding the place of WS-I in the
interoperability area and how we ended up there. Regarding the
definition of extensions, it is perfectly arguable that it should be
either the WSDL WG (we are defining the set of extensions to support
SOAP and HTTP) or the OASIS TC (they are defining the security
extensions for SOAP). I'm inclined to suggest the OASIS TC. The WS
Architecture WG is (was?) about to send a message to this TC as you are
already aware [1]. I suggested (actually, Joyce raised the subject
first) that we should have an opinion on this message as well and you
don't think so. Even if I don't expect the WSDL WG to interfere with the
current directions of WSA, I think it would be fair to ask the WG if
they have an opinion before raising the issue to the CG. If the OASIS TC
does not want to address those extensions, we might need to think about
doing it.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Nov/0006.html

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> > Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> > To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: wsdl extensions
> > 
> > 
> > On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 19:21, Joyce Yang wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > Speaking of WSDL extensions, how does the wsd
> > > wg handle them?
> > >
> > > For example, there is a pressing need to come up with a
> > > wsdl security extension to describe how an endpoint does
> > > security authentication. Does the wsd wg come up with
> > > such an extension (or accept it from some outside proposal),
> > > and then host it OR we are out of the extension business?
> > >
> > > In order for web services to be interoperable, these sort of
> > > extensions need to be defined by and kept in some central
> > > authorities, and is it this wg? Or WS-i? Or is it the architecture
> > > wg? Or something I missed?
> > 
> > The CG had a presentation of WS-Security by the co-chairs of the OASIS
> > TC. I don't know if they address this question or not. imho, it seems
> > appropriate for the TC to tackle this issue as well. After all, they
> are
> > the ones defining WS-Security as well and we won't be able to address
> > all kind of extensions as Sanjiva pointed out. How about raising this
> > issue to the CG to make sure that at least someone is going to
> address?
> > 
> > Philippe
> > 
> > 
Philippe Le Hegaret - http://www.w3.org/People/LeHegaret/
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), Technical staff
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 10:00:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:40 UTC