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

Re: WSA From

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:41:28 -0500
To: John Kemp <john.kemp@nokia.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC78A42C8.38C1C9DA-ON85257113.00669C0D-85257113.0066ACD0@us.ibm.com>

WSA identifies parties sending and receiving messages using endopint


                      John Kemp                                                                                                          
                      <john.kemp@nokia.com>           To:       "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>                                       
                      Sent by:                        cc:       Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, public-ws-addressing@w3.org      
                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Re: WSA From                                                             
                      02/10/2006 04:56 AM                                                                                                

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.


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/)


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 Sunday, 12 February 2006 18:41:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC