W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2006

RE: Action item - lc129

From: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Apr 2006 10:07:28 -0700
Message-ID: <37D0366A39A9044286B2783EB4C3C4E80245B0F4@RED-MSG-10.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
To: "Francisco Curbera" <curbera@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Looks good to me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Curbera
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:32 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Action item - lc129
> This is my take on expanding "option 4" in Jonathan's mail [1]
> the
> default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about
> support."). I am not proposing here the changes necessary to fully
> incorporate a resolution of the issue, only proposing a clarification
> 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,
> service descriptions SHOULD use additional metadata, such as WSDL
> or additional policy assertions, to indicate any requirements or
> restrictions on the use of the anonymous URI by clients. However, in
> absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume
> 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
> if a message received uses the anonymous URI in a way that is
> by the endpoint."
> [1].
Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 17:07:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:13 UTC