- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 16:00:42 -0500
- To: "Jeffrey Schlimmer" <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
At 06:11 PM 2/8/2002 -0800, you wrote: >One of the first activities of the W3C Web Services Description Working >Group is to draft a set of requirements and scenarios for the working >group. Per our first teleconference, below is a draft list of >requirements; the list is an individual contribution -- it does not >reflect any decisions of the working group -- all mistakes are mine. > >Please review the list and provide feedback. > >--Jeff > >. . . >PORT TYPE (and OPERATION) (2xx) > >Must be able to describe simple one-way messages, i.e., either incoming >or outgoing (event) messages. > >Must be able to describe simple request-response-fault message exchange. > >(Not a requirement to describe arbitrary message exchanges.) Not sure what you mean by "fault" here. Also, did you mean to include both request-response and solicit-response exchanges (as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/wsdl#_porttypes )? >Must be able to describe sets of messages that form a logical group >(i.e., a port type). > >Must be able to derive a port type from another by extension of the >logical group of messages. Do you mean creating a new port type from another by adding more message types? >. . . >ENDPOINT (5xx) > >Must be able to describe endpoint location using URIs. > >Must be able to describe address for specific port instances within a >service. > >Must be able to separate design-time from run-time information. What do you mean by "design-time" and "run-time" in relation to endpoints? >. . . >SECURITY > >Compliance must not preclude building implementations that are resistant >to attacks. This sounds like a fairly weak requirement. Can it be stronger? David Booth
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 15:58:24 UTC