W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org > June 2005

RE: no mustUnderstand extensibility

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2005 12:09:56 -0700
Message-ID: <7DA77BF2392448449D094BCEF67569A5080AB74F@RED-MSG-30.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Jacek Kopecky" <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>, <public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org>

Jacek,

The Working Group found the issue you raised [1] to substantially duplicate discussion we already had as a Working Group.  While there was some support in the Working Group for defining this functionality, others felt that this would impact larger areas of design (such as bringing the reconciliation of embedded metadata with known metadata) into scope, and would be hard to specify completely at this point in WS-A's lifecycle.  Given the lack of consensus to reopen this issue, the issue was closed by the chair.

Please write back to us if you would like this resolution brought forward for Director review; if we
do not hear from you in two weeks, we'll assume you are satisifed with our resolution.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc68
 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-comments-request@w3.org on behalf of Jacek Kopecky
Sent: Tue 5/3/2005 6:54 AM
To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
Subject: no mustUnderstand extensibility




Hi,

as an LC comment for WS-Addressing, it is my opinion that section 2.5 of
the Core spec is incomplete at best.

In particular, it concludes with "designers should consider whether they
desire standard processing per this specification in cases where their
extension is not recogonised or understood" but what if a designer comes
up with the answer that nope, they don't desire standard processing if
their extension is not understood? Either the section 2.5 should be
extended with a rationale for not allowing this scenario or a model for
required (mustUnderstand) extensions should be devised.

For the sake of simplicity, I'd probably prefer either reusing some
existing mechanism for that (like wsdl:required), possibly raising a W3C
issue about the creation of a general mechanism (xml:mustUnderstand?),
or just saying clearly and explicitly that WS-Addressing does not
support required extensions and why.

Also, please note the typo in "recogonised" present in that text in the
spec.

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Ph.D. student researcher
                   Digital Enterprise Research Institute
                   University of Innsbruck
                   http://www.deri.org/
Received on Wednesday, 29 June 2005 19:14:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:19:38 GMT