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

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

From: Mark Little <mark.little@jboss.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 15:45:26 +0000
Message-Id: <B9267C9B-0B93-4A40-9D50-34638824C87C@jboss.com>
Cc: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
To: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Are you looking for a Henry Fonda person (12 Angry Men) ;-)?

Mark.


On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:52, Bob Freund wrote:

> 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 15:44:12 GMT

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