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

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

From: Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:52:19 -0500
To: "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <7D5D3FDA429F4D469ADF210408D6245A066927@jeeves.freunds.com>
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 Tuesday, 31 October 2006 23:52:43 GMT

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