RE: Latest cut at ws-arch to oasis ws-security tc on wsdl defs

"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch
Message-ID <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E016246AD@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
Looks great to me.

On the typo/wordsmithing front, WSDL needs to be capitalized at the end of
the first list point.  Second paragraph, "recommendation as TO".  Next
sentence, "it is our opinion" (no "of").

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 11:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Latest cut at ws-arch to oasis ws-security tc on wsdl defs



Please review the following, your comments welcome but also hopefully this
will be the last version before it goes to the oasis ws-security tc.

Dear OASIS WS-Security TC,

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.  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 its
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.  The
importance of WSDL for interoperability is evident by the prominent place
that WSDL has in the W3C Web Services Activity and the WS-I Basic Profile.

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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.