Re: WS-Addr issues

On Nov 3, 2004, at 5:10 PM, David Orchard wrote:
>
> I think I'm +1.  The only niggling bit is on the "can be", that can 
> mean
> a couple different things:
>
> A service provide that doesn't put the WSDL contract information in an
> EPR:
> 1) MUST provide support for something like WS-MEX
> 2) MAY provide support for something like WS-MEX.
>
What's the status of WS-MEX ? Is it the subject of a standardization 
effort in a recognized standards body ? If not, then I'd be against 
adding any normative reference to it at this point - we agreed to 
remove the reference to WS-Policy for this reason already.

Marc.

> I'm +1 on the 2nd option and a big -1 on the first.  We don't require
> HEAD on http: URIs.
>
> Dave
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 1:52 PM
>> To: Vinoski, Stephen; Doug Davis
>> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
>>
>>
>> Hey Steve,
>>
>>> While that's true, it doesn't help unless the contract
>>> address is associated with the EPR such that having the EPR
>>> can get you to the contract.
>>
>> Yes you're right - I'll be more explicit: I think it's OK to not have
>> WSDL contract information embedded in an EPR  provided that the WSDL
>> contract can be obtained using the EPR (for example as part of a
>> WS-MetaDataExchange message exchange).
>>
>> Jim
>> --
>> http://jim.webber.name
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.