W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > March 2010

Re: MOAP is checked

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 11:14:37 -0400
To: "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org, public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org, "Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Message-ID: <OF1C890647.96D3B6A4-ON852576E8.0053845B-852576E8.0053BD96@us.ibm.com>
Hi Li,
  for paragraph #5 I agree - seems redundant.  For paragraph #3 though, I 
think we may need to keep that since the assertions we define can't go on 
all WSDL attachment points, rather they can only be attached to certain 
ones.  For example, I'm not sure what it would mean to attach the 
wse:EventSource assertion to a message.  How about you open up a new issue 
so we can discuss these? 

STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
03/16/2010 11:02 AM

"Chou, Wu (Wu)" <wuchou@avaya.com>
Re: MOAP is checked

I've made all of the updates for MOAP.  Please look them over to make
I didn't miss anything.



I just have some editorial comments. 

1. WS-Eventing Section 9.1 paragraph 3 seems a paraphrase of WS-Policy
1.5 Attachment Sections 4.1.2 and 5.4.2. Paragraph 5 seems a paraphrase
of WS-Policy 1.5 Framework section 4.3.1. 

2. The same for WS-Eventing Section 9.2 paragraphs 3 and 5.

3. The same for other WS-RA specs, including WS-Enumeration.

I wonder if we should avoid repeating or paraphrasing other spec, as we
have deliberately removed a lot of WS-Addressing paraphrases from WS-RA.


Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 15:15:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:55 UTC