W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > December 2004

RE: MEP/Fault task force telcon Thursday?

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 11:54:51 -0500
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: jmarsh@microsoft.com
Message-Id: <1103820891.9707.21584.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

Here are minutes from today's MEP task force call:

And also included below in plain text.



      [1] http://www.w3.org/

                      WSDL 2.0 MEP Task Force Discussion

23 Dec 2004

   See also: [2]IRC log

      [2] http://www.w3.org/2004/12/23-ws-desc-irc


          Dbooth, Jonathan_Marsh, GlenD, Umit





     * [3]Topics
         1. [4]MEP Task Force Discussion (Issue LC50 and Issue LC5f)
     * [5]Summary of Action Items


MEP Task Force Discussion (Issue LC50 and Issue LC5f)

   <dbooth> GlenD: Goals of processor conformance: Allow someone to point
   to the spec and complain if someone else is non-conformant. Also to
   have a product stamped "WSDL 2.0 Conformant".

   We're discussing adding a way to mark in WSDL the difference between a
   server requiring a feature and actually engaging the feature.

   I.e. A server can require a feature but then not use it.

   A client can choose whether or not to engage a non-required feature.

   Suggesting adding some guidance (not a marker).

   Glen: Hard to do that without adding more confusion.

   Umit: Client always wants to recieve messages in an encrypted fashion.
   Not a WSDL problem.

   Glen: Has to be out of band agreement.

   DBooth: This is what I wanted to warn about. If there's an optional
   extension, the client must be able to indicate (in-band or
   out-of-band) whether to engage that extension.

   Marsh: So a client can't tell just from looking at a batch of WSDL
   whether a required feature will be engaged by the server.

   Glen: No, but individual features (e.g. security), can specify how or
   whether a feature will be engaged by the server, and teh client can
   rely on that.
   ... This guidance would be great as a note or a blog, but doesn't seem
   like it should go into the spec.
   ... Like best practices and patterns of using TCP.

   Everyone likes DBooth's definition of node.

Summary of Action Items


    Minutes formatted by David Booth's [6]scribe.perl 1.99 ([7]CVS log)
    $Date: 2004/12/23 16:51:00 $

      [6] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/scribe.perl
      [7] http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/2002/scribe/scribe.perl


David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 16:55:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:54:51 UTC