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

Hi Bob

We have discussed CR33 for such a long time now - we must be in a position 
to make a decision.
I propose that we formally vote in today's meeting in order to reach 
resolution. 

I suggest the following staged approach:
1) (Assuming not close-with-no-action) Which proposal of those on table 
(Paco's/Anish's vs DavidHull's)? Summarise proposals. Take a vote.
2) Does anyone need the solution to be reflected in WSDL, or will policy 
solution suffice? Take a vote.
3) Iron out details such as proposal syntax/names.  Namespace 
implications.

Best regards
Katy




"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
04/11/2006 17:54

To
"Mark Little" <mark.little@jboss.com>
cc
"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference






More like Spencer Tracy (Inherit the wind)
-bob
 

From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] 
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:45 AM
To: Bob Freund
Cc: [WS-A]
Subject: Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 
teleconference
 
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