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

Re: A different hybrid approach

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:21:36 -0500
To: paul.downey@bt.com
Cc: dug@us.ibm.com, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-id: <4547A240.50502@tibco.com>
Thanks, Paul.

A few comments inline (that originally read "one comment in line" but,
erm, well, er ...)

paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> <snip/>
>>
>>    * 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.
>   
I agree about the whitelists and blacklists.  The idea here is for, say,
an endpoint that supports async replies to say things like "I can send a
reply via email" or maybe "I can't send HTTP replies to www.cnn.com" and
probably "I can accept RM Anon (or whatever other magic URI) in a
ReplyTo."  All of this would work together with  an implicit (or
explicit) "I may also have more restrictions that I can't or won't tell
you about."

Lest this seem like some big amorphous ill-defined ever-growing
feature-creeping behemoth, the plan would be to provide a couple of bits
of XML to say "it looks like this" and "you can/can't use it here" and
let people who have more exotic things to say extend.
> As for other specs defining URIs which WS-Addressing has
> to understand as being an alias for "anon", no thanks!
>   
Indeed, but I'm pretty well convinced there's no need for this.
> <snip/>
> +1 Splitting the issue may be helpful if the protagonists agree.
>   
I'm all for it.  I'll even file the issues if there's a consensus to do so.
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 19:22:27 GMT

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