RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

+1 to Bryan.

Igor, I agree that our "discovery" section is incomplete. You are right
that in some cases one needs an EPR to invoke the manageability
interface and we don't describe how to access this. This is a TODO for
the next version. And BTW, our current spec only works well not only if
you don't use ReferenceProperties but also if the WSDL for the
management and operation aspects are the same. Otherwise we don't
provide a way to get to the management WSDL. Unless people use out of
band methods to get the EPR/WSDL around, in which case they are ok.

So yes we need to work on this. But WSDM 0.5 is an interim release. I'd
rather have something that is not entirely wrapped-up but a clear subset
of WSDM 1.0 than taking the spec on a side track with some special
limitations and later have to remove them to go back on the main road.

Regards,

William

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Murray, Bryan P. 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 2:03 PM
> To: 'Sedukhin, Igor S'; Vambenepe, William N; 
> wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
> 
> 
> WSDM has decided to use WS-ResourceProperties to support its 
> need for attributes for version 0.5. I think we should not 
> add a constraint to the WSDM specs contradicting some of what 
> is required by WS-RP.
> 
> This does not mean that a manageability endpoint needs to 
> supply an EndpointReference that makes use of 
> ReferenceProperties. But, since WS-RP is based on 
> WS-Addressing, it does mean that a compliant manageability 
> endpoint does need to understand the WSA SOAP headers.
> 
> Furthermore, a compliant manageability client does need to 
> understand the ReferenceProperties aspect of an 
> EndpointReference and treat them appropriately when sending 
> messages to that endpoint.
> 
> The interop tests we run in April 14-15 are not WSDM 0.5 
> compliant. I expect that the tests we run at the next 
> face-to-face will be. We can't just kludge the spec to make 
> our interop tests work. The interop tests need to be used to 
> validate that we are using the right technology in our spec.
> 
> Bryan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Sedukhin, Igor S [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 1:46 PM
> To: Vambenepe, William N; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
> 
> 
> I just want to define consistently interoperable specs. This 
> has nothing to do with the interop scenario.
> 
> If I give you a WSDL that follows WSDM 0.5 and in the binding 
> it states that WSA headers are required and mustUnderstand. 
> There is no way you can talk to such manageabilty endpoint 
> without knowing where to get the EPRs.
> 
> In the 1.0 or 0.8 if we decide to explain how and where to 
> get the EPRs for this case, we can remove the statement.
> 
> The problem here is that WS-Resource pattern is the "default" 
> in WSRP and so we'd have to constrain to make it work for 
> 0.5. If it was otherwise, i.e. "singleton" was defualt, we'd 
> not have to state anything.
> 
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
> -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vbp@hp.com] 
> Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:31 PM
> To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - 
> wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
> 
> 
> Hi Igor,
> 
> > 770 Section 6 should say
> > "WS-ResourceProperties MUST be used in a singleton pattern.
> > WSA headers are not expected and not required in message exchanges."
> > We may remove this statement after we have discussed this and 
> > addressed properly.
> 
> How about we discuss before adding the statement? :-)
> 
> I don't understand why we need this statement. I understand 
> that we have chosen to limit ourselves to this case in the 
> interop demo, but why does that mean the spec needs to be 
> limited to this? This is just one of many decisions we have 
> made for the sake of simplicity in the interop and I don't 
> have a problem with it in that context. But what is the 
> rational for restricting the WSRF implied resource pattern in 
> the spec?
> 
> Do you have a reason that would not apply to WSRF but would 
> apply to WSDM and would therefore require us to profile WSRF 
> in such a way?
> 
> William
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leav
e_workgroup.php.



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgrou
p.php.