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

You'll have to forgive me, I have a limited imagination. Can you provide 
some examples of the "valid reasons" an implementation may have for 
producing/providing a WSDL that violates the one or more of the 
requirements in Section 4 of BP 1.1? I can't think of any.

- gp

On 12/22/2009 10:14 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
> 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
>