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

RE: WS-Addr issues

From: Martin Gudgin <mgudgin@microsoft.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 02:09:26 -0800
Message-ID: <DD35CC66F54D8248B6E04232892B633803E00B73@RED-MSG-43.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "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>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> David Orchard
> Sent: 05 November 2004 18:27
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 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. 

+1. The amount of time it took to do SOAP 1.2 was out of proportion to
the substantive differences between it and 1.1. Even XOP/MTOM took over
18 months, despite not being significantly different from the initial
spec.

>  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.  

+1

> I believe this concern partially led to the
> charter being created the way it is.

+1

Gudge (wondering with hindsight why he didn't just +1 at the top and
leave it at that!)



> 
> 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 Saturday, 6 November 2004 10:09:31 GMT

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