RE: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions

Hugo,

thanks for the comments.  I've just posted my update.  I'm more comfortable
with "WSDL has an important place in both W3C's work and WS-I's Basic
Profile".  I've tweaked the wording somewhat for readability.  Check what I
just posted.

I want to totally stay away from versions.  The issue of migrating from wsdl
1.1 to wsdl 1.2 is of concern to every implementor of wsdl, not just
ws-security.  And I'm also sure that the ws description group will take
migration into account to the best of it's abilities and schedule.  BTW,
there is another advantage to ws-security working with WSDL now rather than
later, which is that the oasis ws-security TC might be able to make
recommendations to the WSD working group about WSDL syntax.  The ability for
a standards committee as consumer of WSD can only help WSD produce a better
product.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Hugo Haas
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 1:14 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: Philippe Le Hegaret; David Booth
> Subject: Re: Potential issue around ws-security and wsdl definitions
>
>
>
> Hi Dave.
>
> I just realized something about the proposal that you made yesterday
> in the teleconference.
>
> * David Orchard <[email protected]> [2002-10-24 15:59-0700]
> > 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.
>
> Based on my feedback, you proposed to replace the last sentence by,
> IIRC, "WSDL has an important place in both W3C's work and WS-I's Basic
> Profile".
>
> I would be more specific: "WSDL 1.2 has an important place in the Web
> services architecture developed at W3C, and WSDL 1.1 is a component of
> WS-I's Basic Profile."
>
> Which brings me to the point that we didn't specify a version of WSDL
> to develop this description for, but I think that this is actually OK,
> since it probably is too early to develop it for WSDL 1.2, but
> developing it for WSDL 1.1 would give us something that should be
> reasonably easy to migrate to 1.2. And saying just "WSDL" leaves the
> door open for them to work with the Web Services Description Working
> Group if their schedule permits.
>
> I am copying Philippe (and David) to see if they have comments.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>