Re: Conformance points

Why, that's clear, concise and -- on a quick first reading at least --
accurate and complete.  Maybe we can sneak it in anyway :-).

Jonathan Marsh wrote:

> I promised a stab at a concrete proposal:
>
>  
>
> Add a new section:
>
>
>       *6 Conformance*
>
> An endpoint reference whose wsa:Metadata element has among its
> children the elements defined in [2.1 Referencing WSDL Metadata from
> an EPR] conforms to this specification if it obeys the structural
> constraints defined in that section.
>
> A WSDL description conforms to this specification when it incorporates
> directly or indirectly one or more of the [3.1 wsaw:UsingAddressing
> Extension Element] or the [3.3 WSDL SOAP Module] markers, and obeys
> the structural constraints defined in section [3 Indicating the use of
> Addressing] appropriate to that marker, and those defined in section
> [4.2 Action].
>
> An endpoint conforms to this specification if it has a conformant WSDL
> description associated with it, and receives and emits messages in
> accordance with the constraints defined in sections [4 Specifying
> Message Addressing Properties in WSDL] and [5 WS-Addressing and WSDL
> Message Exchange Patterns].
>
>  
>
> Comments welcome.
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Jonathan Marsh
> *Sent:* Thursday, April 06, 2006 1:28 PM
> *To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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.
>
>  
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/04/03-ws-addr-minutes.html#action02
>
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc124
>
>  
>
>  
>
> ** [  **Jonathan Marsh ** ][ ** jmarsh@microsoft.com
> <mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com> ** ][
> ** http://spaces.msn.com/auburnmarshes**  ]**
>
>  
>