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

RE: First cut policy write up

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:34 +0000
To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Cc: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF122FC9F8.4A856756-ON8025723A.00346ADA-8025723A.00458A14@uk.ibm.com>

Comments below.

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 12/01/2006 10:34:05 PM:

> > I spent a while yesterday going over this proposal with Katy, 
> > Paco, and 
> > our WS-Policy development team and we have a couple of concerns.
> > 
> > 1. There is no way to mandate addressing in this proposal 
> > i.e. In normal 
> > form (once the wsp:Optionals etc have been expanded) the presence of 
> > wsaw:UsingAddressing only indicates addressing is supported. 
> > We need a way 
> > to say addressing is required. I don't have a proposal yet to 
> > deal with 
> > this.
> > 
> 
> I am really not following this point. Could you clarify? 
> 
> If you do not use wsp:optional and use the standard attachment
> mechanisms, why wouldn't WS-Addressing be NOT required. 
> 
> IF there is no alternative in the policy, the intersection algorithm and
> thus the client will treat WS-Addressing assertion as an addition that
> it needs to understood and thus make behavior required. 
> 

I agree that in those circumstances, the UsingAddressing assertion would 
be required for the client.
However, the example states:
> > <wsp:Policy>
> >   <wsaw:UsingAddressing>
> > </wsp:Policy>
> > This policy indicates that the subject supports the use of 
WS-Addressing. 

It explicitly does not say that inclusion of UsingAddressing in an 
alternative mandates the use of WS-Addressing, merely that it is 
supported, hence the concern.

David
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 12:39:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:15 GMT