headers
Yves Lafon | 15 Nov 2005 16:35
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Media Type Request for comments: WS-CDL 1.0

[
     Notes:

     We slipped up in not sending this along with the Last Call
     announcement; please accept our apologies.

     Comments on the MIME-related part of the document may be made
     on the ietf-types mailing list or in the
     public-ws-chor-comments <at> w3.org mailing list..  See the
     "Status of this Document" section for further information.

     We are following
     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-05.txt
     here, and the text is written to be part of a larger document.

     Finally, as WS-CDL is a description format and not something directly
     executable, the Working Group didn't identify any need for a
     specific security section.

]
The current specification is at:
     http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-cdl-10-20051109/

The MIME Type template at
     http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-cdl-10/#Mime-Type-definition

One typo already spotted, in the Author/Change controller, 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/ should be a link with a text value of "Web 
Services Choreography Working Group".
Thanks,
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Martin Duerst | 18 Nov 2005 09:54
Picon
Gravatar

Re: Media Type Request for comments: WS-CDL 1.0

Hello Yves,

Some comments below.

At 00:35 05/11/16, Yves Lafon wrote:
 >[
 >     Notes:
 >
 >     We slipped up in not sending this along with the Last Call
 >     announcement; please accept our apologies.
 >
 >     Comments on the MIME-related part of the document may be made
 >     on the ietf-types mailing list or in the
 >     public-ws-chor-comments <at> w3.org mailing list..  See the
 >     "Status of this Document" section for further information.
 >
 >     We are following
 >     http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-freed-media-type-reg-05.txt
 >     here, and the text is written to be part of a larger document.
 >
 >     Finally, as WS-CDL is a description format and not something directly
 >     executable, the Working Group didn't identify any need for a
 >     specific security section.

You need a security section, even just to describe why you think
there are no security issues, and to document that you actually
thought this through.

 >]
 >The current specification is at:
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane