W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > December 2000

DR305 -- ongoing discussion

From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
Date: Fri, 29 Dec 2000 16:57:13 -0500
Message-ID: <472E220BA79DD11186340060B06B38D9033AD188@tpantmail1.ssr.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
By vote of the Working Group in Redmond during the December 13-14 
face to face meeting,  I've been asked to revise the wording of

=== From the 2000-12-19 XP Requirements WD:

>DR305 (Absorbs old DRs: DR003) Ednote: Under consideration. Owner: David Ezell
>The XML protocol must provide facilities that encourage a common approach for 
>providing features such as  authentication, encryption,payment, reliable
>sessions and transactions. Such facilities might include optional 
>standardized header and/or trailer elements. These facilities should encourage 
>"best-practice" in implementing the required features.

=== Proposed revision:

>In order to encourage a consistent approach for developing features which are
>out of scope for the XP specification itself, the XML Protocol Specification
>must provide facilities and enumerate favored ways of applying those facilities
>in support of such features.
>Examples of features which are out of scope but for which consistent design
>will undoubtedly be beneficial are 1) message authentication and encryption 
>(perhaps using SMIME, SSL, or digital signatures), 2) sessions and transactions

>(possibly by providing globally unique identifiers for messages), and
>3) service definition and discovery.
>SOAP 1.1 facilities such as the "Header" element and the "encodingStyle",
>"mustUnderstand", and "actor" attributes are examples of the kinds of 
>support facilities and use patterns addressed in this requirement.

=== Rationale:

Note that the first sentence is the actual requirement.

Item "c" in the following list of specific comments as well as the need to 
include older DRs led to a rephrasing of the requirement (as opposed to a 
gentler rework).  

Specific comments from the f2f:

a-- "facilities might..." ought to be "facilities should".
b-- The term "implementing" is problematic.
c-- Suggesting possible outcomes for this requirement might help clarify it.
d-- "payment" should not be included in the list of features.

Other observations:

The spirit of DR305 is that the WG (through the XP specification) should
that certain classes of features will be required for a large number of XP
and that even though the design of these features is out of scope for this WG,
would benefit from some guidance on "best-practice" in creating these features.
other DRs were removed from the requirements document with the understanding
their mention in DR305 would be an adequate capture of their essence.  These
the following:

>xml protocol should work well with popular security mechanisms. 
>Popular ones are smime/ssl/digital signatures.

>A message must have a globally unique identifier. 

>Must not preclude transaction support, discovery of service definitions and

David Ezell 
Received on Friday, 29 December 2000 16:57:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:11 UTC