- From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:31:58 -0400
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
This is my take on expanding "option 4" in Jonathan's mail [1] ("Remove the
default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about Anonymous
support."). I am not proposing here the changes necessary to fully
incorporate a resolution of the issue, only proposing a clarification of
the assumptions clients would be able to make when no wsaw:Anonymous
element is present.
"A WSDL or policy based service description that includes the
wsaw:UsingAddressing but no a wsaw:Anonymous marker makes no assertion
regarding a requirement or a constraint in the use of the anonymous URI in
EPRs contained in messages sent to the endpoint. In this cases, endpoint
service descriptions SHOULD use additional metadata, such as WSDL bindings
or additional policy assertions, to indicate any requirements or
restrictions on the use of the anonymous URI by clients. However, in the
absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume that the
service endpoint follows the behavior indicated by the 'optional' value of
the wsaw:Anonymous marker. An endpoint MAY send a fault back to the client
if a message received uses the anonymous URI in a way that is unsupported
by the endpoint."
[1].
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0019.html
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 02:32:23 UTC