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

RE: WSA From

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:40:31 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>, "John Kemp" <john.kemp@nokia.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFBD1BB29E.1BD4E6CD-ON85257114.006BA78A-85257114.006C1486@us.ibm.com>

David,

Old habits die hard :-(

My mistake to use the "i" word (which we work hard to ban from WSA as we
debated issue 1.)

I should have said "addresses".

Paco



                                                                                                                                  
                      "David Orchard"                                                                                             
                      <dorchard@bea.com        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "John Kemp" <john.kemp@nokia.com>    
                      >                        cc:       Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "ext Mark Baker"                 
                                                <distobj@acm.org>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>,                                 
                      02/13/2006 02:31          <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>                                             
                      PM                       Subject:  RE: WSA From                                                             
                                                                                                                                  




Oh, and I thought WSA addressed parties sending and receiving messages
using endpoint addresses.

Do we need to re-open issue #1 if we're back to using EPRs as
identifiers?  We have said things like "This specification provides no
concept of endpoint identity..".

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Curbera
> Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:41 AM
> To: John Kemp
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; ext Mark Baker; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WSA From
>
>
> WSA identifies parties sending and receiving messages using endopint
> addresses.
>
> Paco
>
>
>
>
>                       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
>                       uest@w3.org
>
>
>                       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.
>
> 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 Monday, 13 February 2006 19:40:35 GMT

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