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

Re: Implementing CR33 - the Policy approach to UsingAddressing, etc

From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 15:24:33 +0000
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFB4000E86.0D08A5D0-ON80257259.0053C634-80257259.0054A059@uk.ibm.com>

I'm in total agreement with B, C & D

I disagree with the part in A that says that it makes CR32 moot. I 
intended (and I believe we agreed in discussion) that the Addressing 
policy assertion would indicate support for the none-uri per the 
resolution to CR32. It appears this didn't make it into my proposal. Is 
that something you could add editorially?


David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)

"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
01/03/2007 01:01 PM
Implementing CR33 - the Policy approach to UsingAddressing, etc

Before I commit wholesale surgery upon the Metadata document, I want to 
confirm the changes. This is my understanding of the required changes.
A.   Remove section 3.2 (wsaw:Anonymous) completely - the wsaw:Anonymous 
element disappears completely; this makes CR32 (allowing None URI when 
anon=required) moot. It also makes CR31 moot, I believe.
B.   Add a section (at the end) on Policy Assertions, describing the 
Addressing assertion, and its two nested assertions: AnonymousResponses 
and NonAnonymousResponses - this section will be pretty much a 
cut-and-paste of David Illsley's proposal, with AddressingRequired changed 
to Addressing.
C.   Do we or don't we retain wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL marker? I 
thought we were retaining it for WSDL 1.1, at least, but I'd appreciate 
confirmation of that. I was planning to retain all of Section 3.1 intact, 
except for removing 3.1.2 which describes using wsaw:UsingAddressing as a 
policy assertion (this makes CR34 moot, too).
D.   I am assuming that the WSDL SOAP Module is being retained as a WSDL 
marker in WSDL 2.0 - is that correct?
Is this an accurate summary, please? If it is, I can implement these 
changes and pretty much complete the surgery to the Metadata document.
Tony Rogers
Received on Thursday, 4 January 2007 15:24:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:15 UTC