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

Ram,

I think you are confusing things here. We have already agreed that 
"end-user WSDLs are free to comply (or not) with the requirements in 
Section 4 of BP 1.1 as they see fit." In my mental model, a device that 
implements the Devices Profile is an "end-user" from the point of view 
of the WS-RA specs.

For example, you performed a WS-MEX GetMetadata on an endpoint asking 
for its "application view" and got back a Devices Profile-constrained 
WSDL that contained solicit-response operations, the web services stack 
at the endpoint would not have violated any of the WS-RA-defined specs 
(in this regard). If, on the other hand, you performed a WS-MEX 
GetMetadata on an endpoint asking for the WSDL of its WS-Eventing 
implementation and got back a WSDL that, for example, contained a 
soap11:binding element without the @transport attribute (in violation of 
BP 1.1 R2701), then the web services stack at the endpoint would be in 
violation of both BP 1.1 *and* WS-Eventing.

I'm not really concerned with labels like "errata" or "rightful 
successor"; I want to make sure that our different implementations of 
WS-Eventing, WS-Enumeration, etc. interoperate. I don't think that 
merely "encouraging" implementations to conform to specific requirements 
in Section 4 of BP 1.1 is going to help make that happen. I've been 
reviewing Section 4. I can't find a single "MUST" requirement that, if 
violated, wouldn't cause interoperability problems between our 
respective stacks.

- gp

On 12/31/2009 2:13 PM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>
> For example, Basic Profile (BP) 1.1 R2303 prohibits the use of 
> solicit-response and notification operations, whereas Devices Profile 
> for Web Services [2] relaxes BP 1.1 R2303 for reasons that better 
> serve the needs of the devices community. The use of solicit-response 
> and notification operations in WSDL provides useful description of the 
> device capabilities.
>
>  
>
> My concern is larger though. While it is true that BP 1.1 profile of 
> WSDL 1.1 is useful, it does not mean that BP 1.1 is an errata or a 
> rightful successor of WSDL 1.1. The fact that DPWS 1.1, though it uses 
> BP 1.1 section 4, overrides BP 1.1 section 4 is evidence that BP 1.1 
> cannot be used as a replacement or as a required adjunct to WSDL 1.1. 
> WSDL 1.1, BP 1.1, and DPWS 1.1 were developed by different 
> organizations and do not always cover the same exact usage scenarios.
>
>  
>
> My thesis is that it is sufficient to encourage concrete 
> implementations of  WS-RA WSDL’s to conform to **specific** 
> requirements in BP 1.1 that this WG thinks are reasonable and useful. 
> Such a statement can appear in the conformance section of the WS-RA 
> specifications. Anything beyond that is heavy handed and makes 
> unreasonable assumptions about the applicability of BP 1.1.
>
>  
>
> Thanks.
>
>  
>
> [1] BP 1.1 
> http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1.html#Allowed_Operations
>
> /4.5.2 Allowed Operations/
>
> Solicit-Response and Notification operations are not well defined by 
> WSDL 1.1; furthermore, WSDL 1.1 does not define bindings for them.
>
> R2303 /A /*DESCRIPTION*/ MUST NOT use Solicit-Response and 
> Notification type operations in a //wsdl:portType// definition. /
>
>  
>
> [2] Devices Profile for Web Services 1.1 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/dpws/1.1/os/wsdd-dpws-1.1-spec-os.html#_Toc228672095
>
>
>     4.3 WSDL
>
> R2004: If a HOSTED SERVICE exposes Notifications, its portType MUST 
> include Notification and/or Solicit-Response Operations describing 
> those Notifications.
>
> R2004 relaxes R2303 in [BP 1.1, Section 4 
> <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-dd/dpws/1.1/os/wsdd-dpws-1.1-spec-os.html#bp11section4>].
>
>  
>
> *From:* Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gilbert.pilz@oracle.com]
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:53 AM
> *To:* Ram Jeyaraman
> *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
> *Subject:* 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> [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 <mailto: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
>