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: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:57:12 -0400
To: Gilbert Pilz <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
Cc: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-id: <4612BFA8.4070704@coastin.com>



Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> 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
>   
As long as the response sender can support both modes, it is enough.  
The request sender decides which
epr to put in fault to and reply to.

Tom
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>     

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2007 20:57:21 GMT

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