Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: AI to figure out where we are on this

[David Booz <booz@us.ibm.com>]

I tend to agree with Eric about 2)-7)...and you're missing a statement about conforming to the Policy FW spec.

Eric, on your point about ed. mishaps. In the other specs we've avoided that by actually putting the text into the table, and then bookmark linking it into the body of the document, so there's not two copies of the normative statements. I am assuming we'll do the same in the binding specs.

Dave Booz
STSM, BPM and SCA Architecture
Co-Chair OASIS SCA-Policy TC and SCA-J TC
"Distributed objects first, then world hunger"
Poughkeepsie, NY (845)-435-6093 or 8-295-6093
e-mail:booz@us.ibm.com

Eric Johnson ---03/12/2009 02:04:57 AM---Seems like you're restating a number of the MUSTs from the rest of the text, but you've got some cri

From:	Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
To:	Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc:	OASIS Bindings <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:	03/12/2009 02:04 AM
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] Issue 25: AI to figure out where we are on this

---

Seems like you're restating a number of the MUSTs from the rest of the
text, but you've got some criteria for choosing a subset that escapes
me.  Also feels like it doesn't help to clarify the requirements when
those "MUST" statements are taken out of context.

Further, as you reference, the editors have an action item to produce a
table of all the conformance statements at the end of the spec.  So with
your proposal, we've got "MUSTs" in section five that repeat both that
appendix, and the text itself.  I'm also assuming that the appendix
would be non-normative(!), so if by some editorial mishap, one of the
MUST statements from the text is missing, it doesn't matter if it is not
in the table.

I'd prefer to see the "new" conformance statement in line with the rest
of the text that relates to the MUST.

-Eric.

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> Here is a proposal to resolve issue 25 based on the direction
> discussed during the last virtual f2f.
>
> Change section 5 from:
>
> -----
> Any SCA runtime that claims to support this binding MUST abide by the
> requirements of this specification.
>
> The normative web services binding XML Schema can be obtained by
> dereferencing the XML Schema namespace, and is also included for
> convenience in Appendix A. The <binding.ws> element MUST be valid
> according to its XML Schema.
> -----
>
> to:
>
> -----
> An implementation that claims to conform to the requirements of an SCA
> Runtime defined in this specification MUST meet the following conditions:
> 1) The implementation MUST comply with all statements in Appendix XXX:
> Conformance Items related to an SCA Runtime, notably all MUST
> statements have to be implemented.
> 2) The implementation MUST conform to the SCA Assembly Model
> Specification Version 1.1 [Assembly].
> 2) The implementation MUST support the SOAP.1_1 intent.
> 3) The implementation MUST support the @wsdlElement and @wsdlLocation
> attributes of the <binding.ws> element.
> 4) The implementation MUST support a WSDL binding identified by the
> WSDL element {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/}binding that has
> the @transport attribute with a value of
> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http".
> 5) The implementation SHOULD support the SOAP.1_2 intent.
> 6) The implementation SHOULD support the <EndpointReference> element.
> 7) The implementation SHOULD support a WSDL binding identified by the
> WSDL element {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap12/}binding that has
> the @transport attribute with a value of
> "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http".
>
> The normative web services binding XML Schema can be obtained by
> dereferencing the XML Schema namespace, and is also included for
> convenience in Appendix A. The <binding.ws> element MUST be valid
> according to its XML Schema.
> -----
>
> Note that Appendix XXX refers to the appendix that will contain all
> the tagged normative statement. This proposal is based on the approved
> conformance text from Assembly spec.
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>> On the last call I mentioned that a proposal for 25 was made and
>> there was a discussion on an earlier call. I took an AI to figure out
>> where we are on this.
>>
>> The proposal and relevant discussion starts at [1]. At the virtual
>> f2f [2] we did discuss this at length. We ended with the following
>> revised proposal:
>>
>> 1) MUST for: SOAP.1_1 intent, @wsdlElement, @wsdlLocation,
>> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap/}binding with
>> transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http"
>> 2) SHOULD for: SOAP.1_2,
>> {http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/wsdl/soap12/}binding with
>> transport="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/http", sca:EndpointReference
>>
>> We did not vote on this because SimonN requested that we resolve
>> issue 54 first, since his vote on this proposal would depend on the
>> resolution on issue 54. So there is a dependency on 54.
>>
>> -Anish
>> -- 
>>
>> [1]
>> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bindings/200902/msg00049.html
>> [2]
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bindings/download.php/31216/SCA%20Bindings%20minutes%202009-02-10.doc
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php