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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 07:46:18 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B783016@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Cc: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Vinoski, Stephen" <Steve.Vinoski@iona.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I didn't propose a normative reference to WS-MEX, nor have I heard
anybody else.   I'm really not sure where you got the idea that a
normative reference was being proposed.  My words were "MAY provide
support for something like WS-MEX" which is hardly a normative reference
proposal.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Hadley
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 6:48 AM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Doug Davis; Jim Webber; Vinoski, Stephen;
public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
> 
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 15:47:12 GMT

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