Re: Follow-up to Question on CR33

Attached is a proposal for isAnon attribute.
It show the modifications necessary for section 3.2 of the wsdl binding.

It does not make wsaw:Anonymous a policy assertion/parameter or split it 
into three parameters/assertions. That would require additional changes.

-Anish
--

Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
> One of the main objections I've heard about the previous proposal that 
> Doug sent out was the fact that what is 'addressable' or not, is not 
> defined in a machine verifiable way and certainly not defined by WSA.
> 
> During the discussion within WSRM there was another solution that was 
> proposed (I think by Gil) which I think would be more acceptable to the 
> ornery (as characterized by Jonathan ;-) ) WSA WG.
> 
> Introduce a new attribute called wsaw:isAnon whose type is boolean. This 
> attribute can occur on wsa:Address as follows:
> 
> <wsa:ReplyTo>
>   <wsa:Address wsaw:isAnon='true'>
> 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000 
> 
>   </wsa:Address>
> <wsa:ReplyTo>
> 
> The semantics of wsaw:Anonymous='required' would mean that either the 
> ReplyTo/FaultTo wsa:Address is wsa 'none', wsa 'anon' or any other value 
> if the wsaw:isAnon='true'.
> 
> This would allow the wsaw:Anonymous marker to be enforced unambiguously 
> and without the requirement to understand some other specification that 
> may define another "anonymous" URI.
> 
> WSRM (or any other spec) now can define their own "anonymous" URI, as 
> they already have, but add the requirement that any use of that URI 
> requires the wsaw:isAnon='true' to be present.
> 
> -Anish
> -- 
>