RE: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions

This looks good to me.

I'm assuming that this is consistent minimally with AR006.10.1 
and possibly with AR006.10.2 in the WS Arch Reqmnts document:
	http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021011


thanks,
Zahid 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, October 24, 2002 4:00 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions



Here's my latest wording, based upon our consensus that we should say
something and Hal's input.

Dear OASIS WS-Security TC,

The W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group would like to express it's
concern around the lack of WSDL definitions for WS-Security elements in the
first version of the WS-Security product.  As a best practice, members of
the
web services architecture group believe that WSDL definitions should be part
of any specification of SOAP Modules.  We would like to encourage the
WS-Security group to take up this piece of work in the first version of it's
product.  It appears that the issue is not so much the "goodness" of such a
thing, rather the timing is the issue.  There are a variety of rationale for
including description in v1: 1) To ensure that the runtime aspects can be
described in a reasonable manner - it would be unfortunate if some headers
were difficult to describe in wsdl; 2) To promote interoperability - bodies
such as W3C and WS-I believe that interoperable descriptions are a
requirement to interoperability.

We were made aware of the significant range of possible description.  We
don't
think it appropriate to venture into your domain and make a recommendation
as
the extent of descriptions that should be provided - such as trusted
authorities, etc.
However, it is of our opinion, though we could easily be mistaken, that a
simple
description of the required WS Security elements in a given message is
probably
doable in a reasonably short time frame.  We are certainly not advocating a
large
(year or more) delay in schedule.

On behalf of the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group,
Dave Orchard


> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of David Orchard
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2002 8:36 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I wanted to potentially raise an issue around liaison with oasis
> ws-security.  ws-security does not currently provide wsdl
> definitions for
> the security elements exchanged.  There is a discussion list around
> describing qualities of service.  I think it would be a good
> thing to ask
> oasis ws-security tc if they could provide wsdl definitions
> as part of their
> v1 output.  Obviously this is a very delicate area, and we
> don't want to
> annoy them.  If there isn't a strong majority within our group, then I
> wouldn't want to proceed either.  This certainly appears to be an
> architectural area.  It appears the key issue is around
> timing of when to
> provide description - either at the same time as the soap
> definitions or
> later.
>
> I think this is also a "web service spec" best practice - Descriptions
> should be provided at the same time as runtime extensions.
>
> Some potential wording suggestion
>
> "Dear OASIS WS-Security TC,
>
> The W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group would like to
> express it's
> concern around the lack of WSDL definitions for WS-Security
> elements in the
> first version of the WS-Security product.  We would like to
> encourage the
> WS-Security group to take up this piece of work in the first
> version of it's
> product.  It appears that the issue is not so much the
> "goodness" of such a
> thing, rather the timing is the issue.  There are a variety
> of rationale for
> including description in v1: 1) To ensure that the runtime
> aspects can be
> described in a reasonable manner - it would be unfortunate if
> some headers
> were difficult to describe in wsdl; 2) To promote
> interoperability - bodies
> such as W3C and WS-I believe that interoperable descriptions are a
> requirement to interoperability.
> "
>
> Cheers,
> Dave
>
>
>