Re: [sca-bindings] [Comment] Web Services Binding specification - optionalconformance points

[Mike Edwards <mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com>]

Simon,

I think that between us we have now
raised all the issues necessary to deal with the Web Services binding spec.

Yours, Mike

Dr Mike Edwards		Mail Point 137, Hursley Park
STSM		Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN
SCA & Services Standards		United Kingdom
Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC
IBM Software Group
Phone:	+44-1962 818014
Mobile:	+44-7802-467431 (274097)
e-mail:	mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com

From:	Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
To:	sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org
Date:	07/06/2011 12:30
Subject:	Re: [sca-bindings] [Comment] Web Services Binding specification - optional conformance points

---

Mike, 

Comments below 

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB wrote on 02/06/2011 17:10:28:

> From: Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB 
> To: "OASIS Bindings" <sca-bindings@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Date: 02/06/2011 17:04 
> Subject: [sca-bindings] [Comment] Web Services Binding specification
> - optional conformance points 
> 
> Folks, 
> 
> Somehow I think that we have overlooked the Web Services binding 
> spec when considering optional normative statements. 
> 
> So this email is intended to kick start the discussion, which will
> lead to some issues, I think. 
> 
> The following is a list of optional normative statements in sca-
> wsbinding-1.1-spec-cd04.doc: 
> 
> BWS20022   (see also BWS20023) 

Covered by BINDINGS-153, I have opened a new issue specifically for this
statement proposing to make it mandatory, and remove BWS20023.

> BWS20029 
> BWS20030 

Covered by BINDINGS-153, I have opened a new issue specifically for these
two statements proposing to make BWS20029 non-normative and delete BWS
20030 

> BWS20034 
> BWS20036 

Covered by BINDINGS-153, still an open question as to whether SOAP 1.2
support should be optional and if so, how we handle that.

> BWS40007 

Covered by BINDINGS-153, needs more discussion, Anish stated that for interop
this really ought to be a MUST, its not an optional feature or recommendation.
 I have opened a new issue specifically for this statement.

> BWS50014 
> BWS50015 

Not mentioned in BINDINGS-153, so should have a new issue if a change is
proposed. 

> There are also the Section 6 Conformance items to consider: 
> 
> Section 6.4 Item 2 
> Section 6.4 Item 3 
> 
> Plus the whole question of WSCB support 
> - do we have 2 implementations? - if not we have to split the spec
 :-( 
> 
> Yours, Mike 
> Dr Mike Edwards 
>  Mail Point 137, Hursley Park 
>  Winchester, Hants SO21 2JN 
>  United Kingdom 
> Co-Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC 
[snip] 
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
> number 741598. 
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6 3AU

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

---

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 741598.
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU