Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Proposal For Vote

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Resend because it didn't hit the list.

>> Goland: If I may paraphrase "Future versions of X may support Y and 
>> Z. This specification says nothing about Y or Z." Why is this 
>> statement necessary? 
>
> mm1: Yaron, both Ron and I agree it is important for WS-BPEL TC to be 
> future-looking. By making a forward-looking statement, we evidence 
> that intent without levying any burden.
>
> In addition, I suggest we address Ugo's question about WS-I BP v1.1. 
> Whether this is a part of Issue 86, revisit of Issue 72 or a new 
> issue, I don't have a preference. Thanks.
>
>>> Proposal to vote, Issue 86 SOAP v1.2
>>> Change in Section 3.0:
>>>
>>> Change From:
>>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL 
>>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can 
>>> participate in
>>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY 
>>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0."
>>>
>>> Change To (add two sentences):
>>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL 
>>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can 
>>> participate in
>>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY 
>>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0. Future versions of 
>>> the WS-I Basic Profile may support the W3C SOAP v1.2 Recommendation 
>>> and a
>>> subsequent WSDL v2.0 when complete in W3C. It is not the objective 
>>> of this specification to define or require that particular protocol
>>> bindings be supported by compliant implementations."
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Submitted by: Ron Ten-Hove and Monica J. Martin
>>