Conformance points

I have an action [1] to detail what I think are the implied conformance
points in regard to issue LC124 [2].


My understanding is that the spec defines a menu of options from which
to choose.  Conformance to the spec doesn't imply that a processor
(whatever that may be) makes use of (either as producer or consumer) all
of the options.


The options are implicitly split up into orthogonal features as follows:

*	2.1 Referencing WSDL Metadata from an EPR.  Further you could
imagine using wsaw:InterfaceName but not wsaw:ServiceName and so forth,
so there may be a finer granularity within this section.
*	2.2 Embedding WSDL Metadata in an EPR.
*	3.1 UsingAddressing Extension.  Implies support for Anonymous
and all of Section 4 ?.
*	3.2 Anonymous Element when used outside UsingAddressing.
*	3.3 WSDL SOAP Module.  Implies support for Anonymous and all of
Section 4 ?.
*	4.2 Action when used outside UsingAddressing
*	4.3 Reference Parameters  when used outside UsingAddressing


Section 5 restates explicitly information inferred by the Core
specification, and therefore isn't something you'd necessarily conform
to separately than the Core.


Except for clarifying the tie of UsingAddressing to Section 4 I'm not
sure adding explicit conformance statements for these optional elements
is necessary.


For UsingAddressing it would be nice to clarify whether conformance to
wsaw:UsingAddressing or the WSDL SOAP Module means that each MUST (MUST
NOT, etc.) in sections 3.1, 3.2, and 4 is followed.


P.S. There aren't any explicit uses of MUST in section 4, which is
probably just an editorial oversight.






 [  Jonathan Marsh  ][
<>   ][
<>   ]


Received on Thursday, 6 April 2006 20:29:13 UTC