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: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Apr 2007 13:30:44 -0700
Message-ID: <461167F4.60904@oracle.com>
To: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
CC: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>

Looks I may have misunderstood what 'split' usecae means.
I assumed that split usecase is where you want to explicitly assert that 
replyto must be non-anon and faultto must be anon.

Is that what you mean by split usecase as well?

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> Proposal G does support the spit use case when the nested assertions are not used to further qualify the use of Addressing.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:13 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> Cc: Marc Goodner; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata
> 
> 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 20:33:53 GMT

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