RE: wsdl extensions

I'm happy to raise it at the CG, if I can understand the issue better.

How would a registration authority (on top of the self-managed URI space
we leverage now) increase interoperability?  Is there not already an
organization (WS-I) dedicated to mitigating the effects of extensibility
on interop by placing brands and testing methodology around sets of
specifications and their extensions?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
> Sent: Monday, November 04, 2002 11:01 AM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Re: wsdl extensions
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 19:21, Joyce Yang wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > Speaking of WSDL extensions, how does the wsd
> > wg handle them?
> >
> > For example, there is a pressing need to come up with a
> > wsdl security extension to describe how an endpoint does
> > security authentication. Does the wsd wg come up with
> > such an extension (or accept it from some outside proposal),
> > and then host it OR we are out of the extension business?
> >
> > In order for web services to be interoperable, these sort of
> > extensions need to be defined by and kept in some central
> > authorities, and is it this wg? Or WS-i? Or is it the architecture
> > wg? Or something I missed?
> 
> The CG had a presentation of WS-Security by the co-chairs of the OASIS
> TC. I don't know if they address this question or not. imho, it seems
> appropriate for the TC to tackle this issue as well. After all, they
are
> the ones defining WS-Security as well and we won't be able to address
> all kind of extensions as Sanjiva pointed out. How about raising this
> issue to the CG to make sure that at least someone is going to
address?
> 
> Philippe
> 
>

Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 19:00:08 UTC