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

RE: WSA From

From: Cahill, Conor P <conor.p.cahill@intel.com>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:31:45 -0800
Message-ID: <8AEB79DC01BE994D8DE3FD02FA5B475B02BEBE5C@orsmsx409>
To: "John Kemp" <john.kemp@nokia.com>, "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


+1 

Conor 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Kemp
> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:56 AM
> To: ext Mark Baker
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSA From
> 
> 
> On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:29 PM, ext Mark Baker wrote:
> 
> >
> > I've seen this too.  HTTP "From" works similarly;
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.22
> 
> Quoted from the referenced link:
> 
> "The From request-header field, if given, SHOULD contain an 
> Internet e-mail address for the human user who controls the 
> requesting user agent." [...]
> 
> Clearly an identifier, not a physical endpoint.
> 
> And:
> 
> On 2/9/06, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> 
> >
> >>
> >> In many B2B scenarios with which I am familiar, the "From" 
> is used to 
> >> identify the party that sent the message. It is not intended to be 
> >> some sort of physical endpoint
> >> (typically) but a logical
> >> identifier that serves to identify the party (e.g. http://
> >> www.ibm.com/)
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> So, shouldn't wsa:From be simply a URI, rather than an EPR? 
> And having used such a syntax, shouldn't we imbue it also 
> with the semantics of an identifier, in a manner similar to 
> that of the above- referenced section of RFC2616?
> 
> - JohnK
> 
> 
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:32:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT