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

Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:24:04 -0500
To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-id: <4549FF84.9040204@tibco.com>
CR 33, day 91 ...

Perhaps the relevant points are:

    * The wsaw: markers need an extension point to cover address URI
      other than the ones WSA defines.
    * wsaw:Anonymous ain't it
    * Separately, whatever WSDL markers we come up with have to work
      equally well as policy utterances.


Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Bob,
>  w.r.t. the first charge, I don't really follow the logic. Even
> without that sentence other specifications can still define whatever
> URIs they want with whatever semantics they want.  So, the problem
> that CR33 tries to address would still exist - basically, should the
> wsaw:Anonymous marker deal with semantics (async vs sync) or should it
> just focus on a more restrictive statement where it focuses on just
> WSA's special URIs (anon and none) without consideration of future
> extensibility.
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>
> 10/31/2006 06:52 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury
> All of the testimony has been given, and the evidence provided for
> your inspection.  The time has come to conclude your deliberations.
>  
> You will be asked to decide the following questions with regard to the
> charges raised against WS-Addressing:
>  
> First Charge:
> One count of flirting with anonymous addresses of unknown character
> without any intention of establishing a meaningful relationship.
>  
> Soap binding 5.2.1 invites other anonymous addresses.
>  
> "Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have
> other behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI)."
>  
> If the Jury finds that the WG didn't really mean it, then the spec
> shall be found guilty of this charge.
> If found guilty of this charge, then the WG shall issue an errata
> removing the flirtatious prose and cr33 shall be closed with no action.
> If found innocent, then the WG is sentenced to accommodate such
> anonymous addresses without prejudice and to modify the WSDL binding
> and the policy assertions accordingly.
>  
> How do you find?
>  
> Second Charge:
> Core and Soap binding are inconsistent: The core spec is section 3.2.1
> says that anonymous is a recognizable uri detectable with simple
> string comparison for
> "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous".  If the Jury returns
> a guilty verdict to the first charge, then this charge is moot once
> the sentence has been served.  If the Jury returns an innocent verdict
> to the first charge, and a guilty verdict to the second charge, then
> the WG shall be sentenced to decide how to remove this inconsistency.
>  
> How do you find?
>  
> Third charge:
> One count of not being policy friendly
> Content in the element is not well matched with the policy framework
> that is forming into a specification.  
>  
> If found guilty, the mandatory sentence is that all markers are to be
> meaningful by their name alone which touches the WSDL binding as well
> as the policy assertion
>  
> How do you find?
>  
> Thanks
> -bob
>  
Received on Thursday, 2 November 2006 14:24:33 GMT

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