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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 10:27:07 -0800
Message-ID: <32D5845A745BFB429CBDBADA57CD41AF0B8353D4@ussjex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: "Jim Webber" <Jim.Webber@newcastle.ac.uk>, "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, "Marc Hadley" <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>, "Savas Parastatidis" <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>


You did sign up for a WG that is a Fast-Track and that has 1 member
submission as the basis, not 2 member submissions.

I can understand making some changes to the spec, even potentially
adding new components (timeout?) or changing cardinalities or some
refactoring.  But the composite set of changes being talked about does
not jive with the charter on timeline or starting point.  

I believe that we have done a disservice to our customers by the length
of time it has taken us to do SOAP 1.2 and WSDL 2.0.  The length of time
has seriously hindered current and future deployment of these RF
standards driven technologies.  Should we break our charter requirements
and do a lengthy WS-Addressing, I truly believe that the world will
simply just use the WS-Addressing member submission and not move the
WS-A Recommendation.  I believe this concern partially led to the
charter being created the way it is.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:50 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Jim Webber; Francisco Curbera; Marc Hadley; Mark Little;
public-ws-
> addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org; Savas
Parastatidis
> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
> 
> David Orchard wrote:
> 
> > With:
> > - Jim wanting to get rid of ref props/params and Action (and by
> > extension I'm wondering if messageid and relatesTo should be removed
> > IHO),
> > - Marc wanting to add lifecycle to EPRs and make To Optional,
> > - Anish wanting to make Service Qname required for EPRs, Address
> > optional,
> > Action a child of To:,
> > - Glen wanting ref props/params as child of To:,
> >
> > This feels to me like some people want to start from scratch.  I
don't
> > think I signed up for a WS-Addressing 2.0 that will take N years.
> >
> 
> As opposed to rubber-stamping of current WS-Addressing spec with ed.
> changes ;-)
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> >
> >>request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
> >>Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:47 PM
> >>To: Francisco Curbera; Marc Hadley
> >>Cc: Mark Little; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-
> >>request@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis
> >>Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
> >>
> >>
> >>Paco:
> >>
> >>
> >>>Action is not part of the EPR; I guess you mean make it an
> >>>optional message header. Still, I guess your point is like
> >>>the one about recognizing that the <To> information may be
> >>>carried by the transport: you do agree it must be there but
> >>>you argue it may be found in many different places (body,
> >>>SOAPAction, etc...). I would still disagree, however: this
> >>>just makes everything much more complicated than is really needed.
> >>
> >>On the contrary it makes good sense to have addressing information
> >
> > like
> >
> >>"to" in an addressing spec. It makes less sense to have "intent" or
> >>"dispatch" information in an addressing spec, and (controversy
ahead)
> >>very little sense whatsoever to have "context" information in an
> >>addressing spec.
> >>
> >>So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see
> >>refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate
the
> >>header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this through
> >
> > an
> >
> >>addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring.
> >>
> >>Jim
> >>--
> >>http://jim.webber.name
> >
> >
> >
Received on Friday, 5 November 2004 18:27:31 GMT

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