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

Re: Action item - lc129

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 16:20:03 -0400
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <55A0C3EF-8F22-4B1F-90F3-194BF3BD5EDE@Sun.COM>

On Apr 24, 2006, at 3:50 PM, Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
> I am not sure why you say it is not testable. If the  
> <wsaw:Anonymous> element is not present then you need to show me  
> metadata indicating what to do about the anonymous URI - a WSDL  
> binding, a policy etc. If you do (say, WCF comes up with a WSDL  
> binding) you are ok, otherwise you are not (and need to give a good  
> reason why not). So I think using SHOULD does make sense.
>
How do I write a test for something that ill defined ? What elements  
in the WSDL or elsewhere satisfy the requirement such that an  
implementation can claim conformance ?

> A separate issue is what kind of metadata is "acceptable", but I  
> would claim that it is not in the WS-Addressing spec interest to  
> define a close set of possible metadata formats that might be used  
> for this purpose. At the interop test we may need to settle for one  
> or another, but in general we don't want to write the spec so  
> narrowly that expected future use cases fall completely outside its  
> scope.
>
I'm not suggesting we write the spec narrowly, only that we define  
conformance requirements in terms of things we define/describe rather  
than things we do not. Using an RFC 2119 keyword to recommend doing  
"something" but not specifying what seems a little odd to me.

Marc.

>
> Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
> Sent by: Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM
> 04/24/2006 03:30 PM
>
> To
> Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> Subject
> Re: Action item - lc129
>
>
>
>
>
> On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:31 PM, Francisco Curbera wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> I'm not sure about the SHOULD in the above. I'd only expect an RFC
> 2119 keyword if we were recommending doing something specific that
> could help with interop. I don't think it makes sense to recommend
> (in an RFC 2119 sense) doing something without specifying exactly
> what since this is an inherently untestable assertion.
>
> Marc.
>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
>
>
>

---
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 20:20:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:12 GMT