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

Question on CR33

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2006 09:52:22 -0400
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC310AFDD.0BF92C8C-ON852571E8.004A650B-852571E8.004C33C4@us.ibm.com>
After Monday's conf call I was thinking about the "status quo" option and 
I was wondering about the implications of that.  As currently worded, the 
wsaw:Anonymous=required option would prevent someone from using any URI in 
wsa:ReplyTo except "anonymous".  This is a bit too restricted because WSA 
itself, during its work on the spec, found the need to define another 
non-addressable URI: "none".  I believe there was some other CR which was 
adopted to loosen the wording a bit to allow for this special case.  So, 
the question that I keep trying to come to terms with is whether or not 
the WG is aware of the implicit restriction of the "status quo" option. 
What it basically means is that no other WS-* spec can ever define its own 
non-addressable URI to be used in wsa:ReplyTo when this WSDL marker is 
used.  Ever.  Ignore RM, or another variant of a URI that means 'the 
backchannel'.  What if some other spec wanted to do exact what WSA did and 
define a new URI to mean something special - e.g. like 'none' means 'trash 
it'?  They can't do it.  Because the semantics of this wsdl marker are 
tied to specific URI values (and, as of now, this list isn't extensible) 
and not to whether or not the server is willing/able to send async 
responses, WSA has in essence banned other specs from doing exactly what 
it itself has found a need to do: extend the list of 'special URIs'. While 
this is obviously an option, is it really the intent of the WG to not 
allow this flexibility for future specs?

thanks
-Doug
Received on Wednesday, 13 September 2006 13:52:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:14 GMT