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

RE: New draft of Metadata document - was RE: 2007-01-15 Teleconference canceled due to low attendance <EOM>

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2007 22:28:18 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165032412DB@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>, "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
There is some discussion in the WS-Policy wg about the semantics of
intersection with empty policy alternatives and nesting. This is why the
WS-A approach to using nesting is rather important. 
 
I read the document and the following statement is not very clear. Could
the wg clarify what is intended: 
 
{Note also that the lack of either of these assertions
(AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymousResponses) does not indicate lack of
support. So it is suggested that a subject that does not have a strict
compatibility requirement that an interacting subject understands or is
concerned with these assertions provides an alternative without either
assertion. }
 
For example, your example 3.2 (with no statement on support on supported
response EPRs) on a service will fail to intersect with a clients policy
which would require anonymous responses. Is the statement quoted above
trying to recommend use of alternatives that contain nested assertions
to indicate explicit support for type of responses (anonymous/non
anonymous) in one of the nested alternatives ? If that is the case,
Example 3.2 needs to be positioned appropriately. Using example 3.2
alone as a policy expression by a service will not allow the clients
that require a specific type of responses to communicate with the
service as the intersection algorithm will fail, but that is not clear
from the text. Thus, example 3.2 as "no-statement on supported
responses" is misleading. 
 
Cheers, 
 
--umit
 
 
              


________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Rogers, Tony
	Sent: Sunday, Jan 14, 2007 12:56 PM
	To: Bob Freund; [WS-A]
	Subject: New draft of Metadata document - was RE: 2007-01-15
Teleconference canceled due to low attendance <EOM>
	
	
	So everyone has a whole week to study the new Editor's Draft of
the Metadata document :-)  You will find it at:
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-wsdl.html
?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8
	 
	The main changes are the complete removal of UsingAddressing and
the SOAP module as alternatives for indicating the use of WS-Addressing
(yes, I have anticipated the WG slightly, but I can roll this back if it
is not agreed - want you to see what it looks like without those) - the
only mechanism supported for indicating/requiring the use of
WS-Addressing is the policy assertion.
	 
	Please e-mail the list with any omissions or mistakes. 
	 
	
	Tony Rogers
	CA, Inc
	Senior Architect, Development
	tony.rogers@ca.com

________________________________

	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Bob
Freund
	Sent: Mon 15-Jan-07 6:51
	To: [WS-A]
	Subject: 2007-01-15 Teleconference canceled due to low
attendance <EOM>
	
	

	 
Received on Monday, 15 January 2007 06:27:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:15 GMT