Constraining the choice of BSP token profile - Basic B2B Profile

Message from discussion Constraining the choice of BSP token profile
Received: by 10.11.13.12 with SMTP id 12mr19605cwm;
        Thu, 12 May 2005 11:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 24.13.64.190 by z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com with HTTP;
	Thu, 12 May 2005 18:41:44 +0000 (UTC)
From:  ri...@us.ibm.com
To:  basicB2B@googlegroups.com
Subject: Constraining the choice of BSP token profile
Date: Thu, 12 May 2005 11:41:44 -0700
Message-ID: <1115923304.803171.158110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

In the early days of developing the Basic B2B Profile, we considered
whether or not to constrain the choice of BSP token profiles which can
be used while conforming to the Basic B2B Profile.  If I recall
correctly, I think the thought was that since not all platforms will
support all the same token profiles, it might help interoperability if
we constrained the choice to only the most commonly supported token
profiles.

I wanted to know what people thought.  Is the lack of uniform support
for BSP token profiles likely to be the source of interoperability
problems?  If so, does constraining the choice seem like a reasonable
way to help improve the likelihood of interoperable Web services?  Of
course, if constraining the choice of token profiles seems like it will
improve interoperability, the next question is which token profiles to
restrict?

Thanks,

Rimas