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

Re: Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr metadata LC comment

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 4 Mar 2007 21:15:25 +0000
To: tom@coastin.com
Cc: WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy <public-ws-policy@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFEEC32B21.00C7A1B1-ON80257294.00742826-80257294.0074C50A@uk.ibm.com>
We have discussed scenarios in previous wsa meetings where a client may 
need to mix anon/non-anon on a single request:
- e.g.  replyTo=anon, faultTo=nonAnon
As wsam:AnonymousResponses and wsam:NonAnonymousResponses are 
contradictory requirements, there does not appear to be a way for a 
service indicate that it could accept this combination on a single request 
(as these assertions specify a single hard requirement which applies to 
both replyTo and faultTo).

Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
02/03/2007 20:36
Please respond to

WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy 

Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr metadata LC 

I never posted a complete change proposal for Alternative A (which 
defines the nested assertions of Addressing assertion as requirements, 
with absence implying Prohibition.

I post this for completeness.

Tom Rutt                 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

[attachment "ws-AddrMetadataPolicyEdits-altA.pdf" deleted by Katy 

Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU
Received on Sunday, 4 March 2007 21:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:38:32 UTC