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

Re: Consolodated list of Alternatives A thru D to resolved WS ADDR LC comment

From: Fabian Ritzmann <Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 14:50:45 +0200
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-id: <45ED63A5.60300@Sun.COM>

Hi,

A comment regarding alternatives A and B. Absence of an assertion 
implying prohibition is not supported by the WS-Policy framework. See 
issue 3602: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=3602

This would be a domain-specific redefinition that introduces an 
undesirable special case.

Fabian


Tom Rutt wrote:
> I thought it would be good to close my action Item from WS addressing 
> WG with this
> summary of my 4 proposed solutions.  (I now prefer alterntiave D)
>
> Alternatives A through C would rely on multiple policy alternatives to 
> indicate that a response sender can use either Anonymous or 
> Non-anonymous Replies.
>
> Alternative A: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0017.html 
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
> requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is 
> anything other than wsa:Anonymous URI.
> Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies 
> prohibition for that alternative.
>  (one problem with Alternative A is that missing nested assertion has 
> same meaning as presence of the other nested assertion, since 
> NonAnonymous URI is a uri which is NOT Anonymous)
>
> Alternative B: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0016.html 
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
> requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is 
> defined as any "connectable" URI..
> Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies 
> prohibition for that alternative.
>  (one problem with Alternative B is difficulty in defining 
> "connectable" URI in a transport independent manner)
>
> Alternative C: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0016.html 
>
>
> Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
> requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is 
> defined as anything other than wsa:Anonynous URI.. Missing nested 
> assertion within an Anonymous assertion has no meaning with respect to 
> use of response URIs.
>
>
> Alternative D: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0018.html 
>
>
> Summary: Remove nested policy assertions for wsa:Addressing assertion.
>
> I personally could live with either alternative D or C, but prefer 
> Alternative D.
> If we pick Alternative C, I see the only practical thing for a 
> response sender to put in its policy is three alternatives (one for 
> addressing with nonAnon repolies, another for addressing with anon 
> replies, and another with addressing showing no nested policy 
> assertion).  However this is no better than saying that addressing is 
> supported.
>
> If we select Alternatives A , B, or C, we should probable add text 
> stating that the policy attached to a response sender subject pertains 
> to individual instances of responses.  Also clarify that if 
> alternatives exist for either non anon or anon, that different 
> response EPRs in the same requiest can obey any of the allowed 
> alternatives.
>


-- 
Fabian Ritzmann
Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Stella Business Park             Phone +358-9-525 562 96
Lars Sonckin kaari 12            Fax   +358-9-525 562 52
02600 Espoo                      Email Fabian.Ritzmann@Sun.COM
Finland
Received on Tuesday, 6 March 2007 12:52:35 GMT

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