W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Minutes of MEP Task Force 2004-11-23

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 21:45:14 +0600
Message-ID: <0ed201c4d23c$9954d1c0$bcffff0a@LANKABOOK>
To: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>, "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>

Violent +1.

Damn, so much love.

Sanjiva.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Roberto Chinnici" <Roberto.Chinnici@Sun.COM>
To: "Amelia A Lewis" <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2004 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: Minutes of MEP Task Force 2004-11-23


>
> Amelia A Lewis wrote:
> > On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:04:37 -0500
> > David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> wrote:
> >
> >>The bottom line is that I suggest -- actually JMarsh made this
> >>suggestion on the call, but I didn't manage to minute it in the midst
> >>of our debate :) -- that the service be permitted to characterize the
> >>fault either as a violation of its policies about where replies are
> >>permitted to be redirected or as an MEP violation.  How about letting
> >>the service characterize the fault in whatever way it sees fit?
> >
> >
> > Violent agreement.
> >
> > Sorry, I'm afraid that in the discussion, it must have appeared that
> > Roberto and I were saying that the service MUST do something,
> > specifically determine the node identity associated with both
> > origination address and reply-to address.  No.  I think it *is* possible
> > that a node could do so, and that, doing so, it could then feasibly
> > fault with the reason "MEP violation."  It could also have a set of
> > policies, associated with or independent of node identity association
> > with addresses, which could cause a fault in the same circumstances,
> > certainly (as well as, potentially, in other circumstances; policy
> > covers a wide territory).  Both faults are possible.  If our
> > disagreement during the call was based on the notion that we would
> > somehow require the service to perform some form of node-identity
> > checking, then I must have misspoken.  I would like the service to be
> > *permitted* to fault in this manner, if, by means unspecified, it
> > determines that the provided reply-to address is in fact *not*
> > associated with the requesting node.  That's all.
>
> Absolutely. We never intended to require the service provider to
> deploy some identity-verification infrastructure, we just wanted to
> ensure that it is possible to do so.
>
> Roberto
Received on Wednesday, 24 November 2004 15:46:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT