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

RE: A different hybrid approach

From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:34:12 -0000
Message-ID: <2A7793353757DB4392DF4DFBBC95225504BFEFB4@I2KM11-UKBR.domain1.systemhost.net>
To: <dmh@tibco.com>, <dug@us.ibm.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

Hi David

> In short, a case can be made for closing CR33 with no action, 

A big +1.

> and then going on to wrangle over questions like:
>
>    * Should we try to fill the hole about cnn.com (i.e., should we
>      define a way of saying what's allowed /besides /anon and none)?

Any meaningful application is going to maintain whitelists or blacklists
of allowed URIs and we want to do this, but outside of a WS-Addressing EPR 
or WSDL binding. 

As for other specs defining URIs which WS-Addressing has
to understand as being an alias for "anon", no thanks!

>    * Should we try to make our WSDL markers more policy-friendly?

Absolutely, 100%. Let's be blunt - anything else is going to be DOA.

>    * Should we try to define some general marker describing a
>      "backchannel" or "new connection" or some other form of "sync" vs.
>      "async" distinction?

Hmmm. A WSDL marker that can be used inside Policy? Maybe. 
A marker on the wire, well we shipped 1.0 without one. 
So, no thanks!

> Much of the reason we haven't closed CR33, IMHO, is because we are
> simultaneously trying to discuss these three other issues, which are
> proving much more contentious (except the second, which seems to have
> fairly general support).

+1 Splitting the issue may be helpful if the protagonists agree.

Paul
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:51:01 GMT

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