W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Issue 012: EPR Lifetime

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 10:16:44 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803D705B6@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Bob Freund" <Bob.Freund@hitachisoftware.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

Thanks to Bob for an excellent summary of the issue. +1 to Paco's
sentiments below.

Gudge 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> Francisco Curbera
> Sent: 03 November 2004 12:31
> To: Bob Freund
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Issue 012: EPR Lifetime
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems clear that one could build not one but many mechanisms for
> managing the lifecycle of EPRs. As a general approach I think 
> WS-Addressing
> should not endorse a particular one (which one and why?), 
> rather it should
> enable other specifications to define their own, so apart from maybe
> refining the faults contained in Section 4 I think lifecycle 
> mechanisms
> fall outside of the scope of the WG.
> 
> Paco
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                       "Bob Freund"                            
>                                                               
>                    
>                       <Bob.Freund@hitachisoftw        To:     
>   <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                               
>                    
>                       are.com>                        cc:     
>                                                               
>                    
>                       Sent by:                        
> Subject:  Issue 012: EPR Lifetime                             
>                            
>                       public-ws-addressing-req                
>                                                               
>                    
>                       uest@w3.org                             
>                                                               
>                    
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
>                       11/03/2004 07:39 AM                     
>                                                               
>                    
>                                                               
>                                                               
>                    
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Statement of issue:
> At the moment there is no specification of the lifetime of an Endpoint
> Reference.
> What needs to be decided is:
>       1)       Is there a need to provide a mechanism for 
> management of EPR
>       lifetime? If yes then what should it do?
>       2)       Or: Is there a need to make some statement 
> concerning an
>       implied EPR lifetime? If yes then what?
> 
> Arguments Against:
>       1)       The web has gone well enough up to now with the tacit
>       assumption that uri's live forever.
>       2)       There is nothing like a 404 to indicate that 
> the EPR you
>       seek has gone missing. The service thus has complete 
> control over
>       expiration.
>       3)       Much complexity especially in request-response 
> MEPs. A lot
>       of this complexity will arise from treatment of the case of EPRs
>       expiring between receipt of request and receipt of 
> response.  This
>       complexity will extend to further complicate all protocols that
>       permit the use of EPR expiration.
> 
> Arguments in Favor:
>       1)       Provides a handy way for the EPR minter to 
> control cache
>       contents.
> 
> 
> 
> General Puzzlements:
>       1)       Would EPRs compare equal if their expiration 
> times were not
>       equal?
>       2)       If one received a message with an expired EPR 
> in its to:,
>       whan ought it to be dropped?
>       3)       If one received an expired EPR in its replyto: 
> ought the
>       message be discarded?
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 18:16:54 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:34:59 GMT