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

Re: Action item - lc129

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2006 10:51:51 +0100
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8216D3FF.66466B69-ON80257155.0030D4EA-80257155.00361BF6@uk.ibm.com>

Looks good but I have a few tweaks for the final sentence.

I'd prefer a SHOULD for the faulting back to the client to encourage 
implementors to actually do this which I believe is important for 
interoperability. I'd also like to change 'uses' to 'includes' as the 
latter implies the check occurs before endpoint invocation which is 
'safer' than the check (and hence fault) occuring when attempting to 'use' 
the EPR to formulate a reply. With those comments and a little 
wordsmithing, my replacement last sentence is:

An endpoint SHOULD send a fault back to the client if a message received 
includes a response epr with an [address] that is unsupported by the 


David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP127, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 04/17/2006 03:31:58 AM:

> This is my take on expanding "option 4" in Jonathan's mail [1] ("Remove 
> 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 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 
> EPRs contained in messages sent to the endpoint. In this cases, endpoint
> 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 the
> absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume that 
> service endpoint follows the behavior indicated by the 'optional' value 
> 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 Wednesday, 19 April 2006 09:51:13 UTC

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