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

Re: WS-Addr issues

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 11:21:58 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.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
Message-id: <A6D81368-2E7D-11D9-A33E-000A95BC8D92@Sun.COM>

On Nov 4, 2004, at 10:46 AM, David Orchard wrote:
>
> 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.
>
Splendid, I guess I got that impression form the use of the RFC 2119 
'MUST/MAY' in your proposal (these keywords are normally associated 
with normative language in a specification).

Marc.

> 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.
>>
>
>
>
---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 16:21:59 GMT

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