W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > April 2007

Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 21:12:30 +0100
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Cc: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF03F516C6.E4E76CA2-ON802572B1.006ED9E4-802572B1.006F01E9@uk.ibm.com>

I know I've missed the last call... but unless it was in that one? I don't 
remember dropping the split response usecase... and the e-mail from Tom on 
March 23rd suggests he thinks the former interpretation provides support 
for it.

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 04/02/2007 09:05:31 PM:

> 
> I didn't quite see it that way. Our nested assertions are not crafted to 

> supported the split usecase. Some time ago we decided against the split 
> usecase. If we change our mind, we need to provide explicit support for 
> that. The current proposal G regardless of the interpretation of what it 

> means to not have a nested assertion does not support the split usecase.
> 
> IIRC, Dave Hull had sent a proposal to support the split usecase.





Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 20:12:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:16 GMT