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: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:37:24 -0700
To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.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>
Message-ID: <4D23423BBBF19E4188569D67B844381C5591CD296B@NA-EXMSG-C105.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

Yes, this is the split use case I mean as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:31 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: David Illsley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata

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 20:39:35 GMT

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