RE: AI 131 - BP requirements that apply to WS-RA's reference to WSDL 1.1

Comments inserted below.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gilbert Pilz
Sent: Monday, December 21, 2009 11:18 AM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: AI 131 - BP requirements that apply to WS-RA's reference to WSDL 1.1

A large part of this issue is about what it means for one spec to normatively reference another spec. That's a pretty big subject but, in the context of this issue I construe it in the following way:

1.) Except for WS-Frag, the specs produced by WS-RA all include WSDL definitions. These WSDL definitions must comply with the requirements in Section 4, "Service Description", of BP 1.1 [1] which, as far as I am aware, they do.

[Ram Jeyaraman] Agree. This is the minimum due diligence the specifications need to do to ensure that the protocol descriptions are interoperable. 

2.) In addition to this, several of our specs discuss or hint at the possibility of implementations that produce/provide WSDLs that are refinements or extensions to the WSDLs defined in our specs. For example, a service that supported WS-Transfer might, if asked correctly, provide a consumer with a WSDL that extends the W3C version of the WS-Transfer WSDL to include a SOAP binding of the "Resource" portType along with a service/port for that service's endpoint. This WSDL must also comply with the requirements in Section 4.

[Ram Jeyaraman] Beyond bullet item #1 above, I think the specifications should encourage, but NOT require, concrete manifestations (that include bindings, et cetera) of WS-RA WSDLs to comply with *specific* requirements in BP 1.1 section 4. This provides the right level of guidance to implementations so they can make interoperable choices. Making it a requirement is too limiting since there may be cases where implementations (endpoints) may choose NOT to do this for valid reasons; this is particularly so since the WS-RA specifications do not define the concrete WSDLs and hence may not anticipate all  the sundry use cases that concrete WSDLs may cover.

3.) End-user WSDLs are free to comply (or not) with the requirements in Section 4 of BP 1.1 as they see fit.

[Ram Jeyaraman] Agree.

[1] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1.html


- gp

Received on Tuesday, 22 December 2009 18:13:52 UTC