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

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

From: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 10:16:58 -0800
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: "bob@freunds.com" <bob@freunds.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <4D23423BBBF19E4188569D67B844381C2768949D08@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
David, I think there is another option. If the jury finds guilty on the first charge I don't think 1.a or 1.b in your list below would need to be pursued. We could move straight into 1.c to make the wsaw:Anon marker policy friendly.

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Monday, November 06, 2006 9:05 AM
To: Katy Warr
Cc: bob@freunds.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference


I continue to be concerned that (1) below is a false dichotomy, as there are two largely separate issues involved.

One issue is whether there should be some sort of extension point -- not necessarily the one I proposed -- for describing what sort of addresses are and are not acceptable beyond the ones WSA defines (i.e., anon and none).  This is larger than WS-RX, though WS-RX is of course a driving use case, and independent of the notion of "back-channel" or "anonymous".  From the mailing list, there appears to be at least some support for opening this issue, including (IIUC) the person who filed CR33.  It is also in line with the findings of the async task force.

The other issue is whether we should define (or allude to, or allow others to define, or mention but leave undefined ...) some notion of "back-channel" beyond what we say in the SOAP binding about the anon address.  If so, there is the separate issue of how to define this.  My impression, perhaps incorrect, is that this proposal grew out of a fairly tactical fix to the language in the WSDL binding, though one could also argue that the notion of "back-channel" would be generally useful.

I'm much more concerned about the first issue than the second.  I would go along with a proposal for the second, as long as it is well-defined.  I have, of course, expressed significant concern as to whether the current such proposal is well-defined.

Framing the question as a choice between these two proposals for largely distinct questions would tend to imply that accepting one means rejecting the other, particularly given the length of time this whole thing has dragged on and the universal desire to get on with it.  This is why I would strongly prefer to see the issues split.  My expectation -- and Lord knows I could be wrong -- is that we could get to a yes/no decision on these separate issues more quickly, as the discussion would be more focused.

Here is a more formal presentation of what I've already proposed in other messages:

 1.  Close CR 33 with no action.
 2.  Go to the pub.
Oops ... sorry ... what I meant was

 1.  Close CR 33 with no action, and concomitantly:
    *   Open an issue about a general extension point for describing what addresses are/are not allowed.  Use my previous proposal as a strawman.
    *   Open an issue about a general definition of "back-channel", with Anish & Paco's current proposal as a strawman.  FWIW, I would support a version along the lines of what Anish mentioned, tying "back-channel" to the SOAP request-response MEP.
    *   Open an issue about making our WSDL markings more policy-friendly.  I don't have a proposal here, as it's outside my comfort zone, but I believe others feel strongly enough about it to drive it.
 2.  Bash the above issues to death
 3.  Go to the pub.
I would propose covering these in the order given (except that (3) could perhaps be interspersed), as the resolution of (a) might possibly shed some light on (b), and (c) can probably be done better once the other two are in place.

Katy Warr wrote:

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

"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com><mailto:bob@freunds.com>
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

04/11/2006 17:54


"Mark Little" <mark.little@jboss.com><mailto:mark.little@jboss.com>


"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org><mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>


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

More like Spencer Tracy (Inherit the wind)


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) ;-)?


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?

Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 18:19:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:15 UTC