W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-async-tf@w3.org > May 2005

Re: Asynch scenarios

From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 12:02:43 -0400
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-async-tf@w3.org
Message-id: <3073cb479d93e5143206ebcc1dc0d6e1@Sun.COM>

Some comments:

(i) Given that [message id] and [relationship] are key for async use of 
addressing, I think it would be useful to include them in the fragments 
(they are much more pertinent to the discussion than e.g. [action] ).

(ii) Many (all ?) of the example use the same address for reply/fault 
to as the original to address, this could be confusing (why would I 
want to send faults to the address i'm sending a message to other than 
as a splendidly recursive DOS attack), suggest you make up a 'my fault 
sink' address to avoid confusion.

(iii) Don't use the anonymous URI from the submission, use the one from 
the latest public draft.

(iv) s/reference properties/reference parameters/g

(v) Might be worth noting that you can s/FaultTo/ReplyTo/ in the robust 


On May 5, 2005, at 3:32 PM, David Orchard wrote:

> I've done almost all the edits that are critical: added readability 
> constructs like TOC, lines, description, WSDL 1.1 and WSDL 2.0 
> interface and binding fragments, and a dummy one-way protocol.
> I did not add any suggestions for WS-A extensions, nor show the soap 
> meps for WSDL meps, nor do the in-optional-out or out-only patterns.
> Please let me know whatever mistakes that I've made, and I'll 
> incorporate ASAP. You can send privately or to list, doesn't matter to 
> me.
> Cheers,
> Dave
> <asynch-scenarios.html>
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Friday, 6 May 2005 16:03:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:48:42 UTC