W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-desc-state@w3.org > June 2003

RE: Some requirements

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2003 23:01:09 +0100
Message-ID: <BC28A9E979C56C44BCBC2DED313A447001D752E1@bond.ncl.ac.uk>
To: "VAMBENEPE,WILLIAM (HP-Cupertino,ex1)" <vbp@hp.com>, "Steve Graham" <sggraham@us.ibm.com>, "David Snelling" <d.snelling@fle.fujitsu.com>
Cc: "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, "Paul Watson" <Paul.Watson@newcastle.ac.uk>, <public-ws-desc-state@w3c.org>, "Steve Tuecke" <tuecke@mcs.anl.gov>

> Thanks for the good comments. I appreciate the information on which of
> this
> requirements are covered by ServiceData and how they are covered. At
> same time, at this point I think the discussion should be "what are
> good
> requirements for attribute support in WSDL 1.2" not "what are the
> requirements that ServiceData supports"...

I too agree that the discussion should be focused on how to introduce
attributes in WSDL. My last message was to that extent. However, the
experience on defining serviceData should not be ignored.

> My comments inlined below, inside <wv></wv>...
> Looking forward to Monday's discussion.

:-( I am looking forward to reading the minutes from Monday's

[Trying to clean up a bit]

> <wv>So at the minimum this means that we should make sure to allow WS-
> Policy
> elements added to attribute description elements. What about going
> Should this task force recommend a way to specify policies (not just
> security policies) on attributes? Or should the task force stay away
> this and users of WSDL 1.2 will figure on their own how to do this
> and
> OGSA security will pick one way, maybe based on WS-Policy, some other
> groups
> will pick other ways that might or might not be based on WS-Policy,
> etc...).
> Seems to me that the same policy-description requirement applies to
> operations. So it might not make sense to consider it specifically for
> attributes. On the other hand, I would very much like to see WSDL 1.2
> provide guidance on this instead of leaving it hanging (and done in
> non-interoperable ways).</wv>

Although I think that the issue of security/policy is very important, I
feel that this TF should stay clear from any attempt to talk about
security and/or policies. This is the job of the appropriate working

Received on Thursday, 12 June 2003 18:01:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:32:54 UTC