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

I feel partially responsible for this misunderstanding; I described the
split-response use case here:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0046.html

In that message I didn't make it clear whether the appearance of both
non-anon and anon addresses in different EPRs in the same message should be
"allowed" or "mandated". What I meant was that they should be "allowed"; in
other words, it should be possible to construct a single policy alternative
that allows for a non-anon ReplyTo and an anon FaulTo.

I think what Anish is talking about is the idea of a policy alternative that
says "ReplyTo MUST be non-anon and FaulTo MUST be anon". We need to give
this use case a different name to prevent confusion. I suggest "Per-EPR
address constraints". IMO this group has already rejected this use case
several times.

- gp

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc Goodner
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:37 PM
> To: Anish Karmarkar
> 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
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> 
>