Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols

I don't think this new issue could reasonably be subsumed into i006,
Paul, unless we were to broaden the scope of i006.

But whatever - as long it's on the list in some way, that's all
that matters.

Cheers.

Mark.

On Tue, Dec 14, 2004 at 01:42:21PM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> if this is to be subsumed by i006 then the title should 
> be updated to "Transport Independence" or some such and/or
> the description updated. All assuming MarcH as the issue's 
> owner is happy with this.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: 13 December 2004 20:12
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols
> 
> 
> Hey Paul.
> 
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:43:38PM -0000, paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
> > Hi Mark!
> >  
> > i think this is closely related to issue 6 "Message Property Optionality":
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i006
> 
> Good catch!
>  
> > AIUI you'd like an addressing xxTo: value to map to an populate a transport 
> > xxTo: value, whereas Marc is suggesting that a missing addressing xxTo: 
> > could default to to a value derrived from the transport.
> 
> s/transport/transfer/, but yah, exactly.
> 
> > i guess both issues raise an issue with the way the spec is structured given 
> > that the SOAP and WSDL bindings are thus far "transport-neutral". 
> 
> Definitely.
> 
> Mark.
> -- 
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Tuesday, 14 December 2004 16:46:42 UTC