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

Minutes: MEP/Fault task force telcon Thursday 23 December 2004

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 2004 08:58:14 -0800
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A50607B4E6@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Brief minutes below:

Present:  DBooth, JMarsh, Glen, Umit

1. Issue LC50: Message Exchange Patterns -- p2c and/or p2e [.1]
  - Proposed resolution [.2]
  - Definition of node: [.3, .4]
  - Status: We have agreed not to change the MEP itself, and have
    agreement about what the behavior is.  I think we need to turn
    [.2] into specific changes in the spec (if any), and iron out
    the wording of our node definition [.3].

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/#LC50
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0088.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0070.html
[.4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0072.html

<Marsh> Everyone likes DBooth's definition of node.

2.  Issue LC5f: QA Review on WSDL 2.0 Part 1, intro and conformance
                issues (f) [.1]
  - Roberto's proposal [.2]
  - No final resolution from FTF [.3], AIs to DBooth/Roberto and DaveO 
    to write up competing proposals
  - Status: We are generally in favor of restructuring or removing
    our processor conformance section.  We are still waiting for 
    written proposals.  I'm not sure we'll get these proposals
    by Thursday, but perhaps we can make some progress outlining 
    the proposals and moving these actions forward.  Or agree that 
    on approach is better.

[.1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/desc/4/lc-issues/issues.html#LC5f
[.2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Oct/0027.html
[.3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2004Nov/0037.html

General recap of the issues and status quo, and some discussion on what
we're really trying to achieve.
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".

Without DaveO or Roberto no significant progress can be made on concrete
proposals, or on reconciling those approaches.

David also asked Glen about whether we should note in the spec how a
client requests that a required feature be engaged (it's the servers

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

Received on Thursday, 23 December 2004 16:58:11 UTC

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