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

Re: Examples to Resolve Issue LC136

From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
Date: Thu, 10 May 2007 20:23:33 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-id: <4643B785.4090407@coastin.com>

see inline

David Hull wrote:
> Tom,
> Before I dig into this in detail, I wanted to point out one thing, which
> may or may not matter and is probably more a WS-P issue if it does.
> You say: "I changed the examples to a server policy intersecting with a
> client policy."
> I'm not sure that this is a safe change.
I do not understand your scenario.  How can there there two policy 
expressions for the same server that are not the same?

> I phrased the original question in terms of two sources of metadata. 
> One knows something.  Another knows something else.  We want to combine
> that knowledge and figure out what they both know together.  For
> example, an abstract WSDL says something general and a concrete WSDL
> provides more detail.  Or we know some things because they're common to
> all servers that implement spec X and we know other things because
> they're company policy around here.  Or there's a minimum service-level
> agreement (e.g., you must at least support anon, or you must not support
> anon and but you must at least support HTTP callbacks) and the server
> provides more capabilities (it supports anon and non anon, or it
> supports both HTTP and Jabber callbacks).
> This seems more general than "the client wants this, the server provides
> that", though if the WS-P intersection algorithm serves for both, great.
> Tom Rutt wrote:
>> This body part will be downloaded on demand.

Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Friday, 11 May 2007 00:23:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:16 UTC