- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 07:12:00 +0100
- To: Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org>
- Cc: David Orchard <david.orchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, www-ws-cg@w3.org
* Philippe Le Hegaret <plh@w3.org> [2002-11-04 14:24-0500] > [[ > The W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group would like to express its > concern around the lack of WSDL definitions for WS-Security elements in the > first version of the WS-Security product. > ]] > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Nov/0006.html > > Given that this is a statement regarding WSDL, I believe it would be > appropriate to ask the WSDL WG about their opinion regarding this > message, don't you think? Actually, this is something which should have been discussed at the CG last week, and that slipped everybody's mind[1]: | Hugo. Can be discussed at WSCG meeting next week. | | DO. How and when does WSAWG need to engage WSCG when interacting with non-W3C | | groups like OASIS. | | (0415) | | Hal. Only approx 12 of 60+ members of WSS TC have participated in QOP discuss | ions. | | MC. recap. get concensus within WSAWG on DO's revised proposal. | | DO. Ask WSCG if it is improper to send such a message to WSSTC. Basically, the Web Services Architecture Working Group thinks that, architecturally, SOAP extensions should be described formally with WSDL, and would like the Web Services Security TC to do so. The larger issue to be discussed also was the kind of communication that the Web Services Architecture Working Group should do with other groups. Let us discuss that at the next CG. Regards, Hugo 1. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/10/minutes24 -- Hugo Haas - W3C mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 01:12:04 UTC