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

Issue 6 is more about optimizing serialization than transport/transfer  
protocol independence. Its basically asking whether we really need to  
include stuff like e.g.:


Or whether it makes sense to say that omission of a <wsa:To> is  
equivalent to including one with the well know 'anonymous' URI as its  

The spec already allows omission of the RelationshipType attribute and  
says that there's a default value of  
''. I'd like to extend this  
defaulting capability to other parts of the spec.

I don't think Mark's issue is quite the same so I'd recommend opening a  
separate issue.


On Dec 14, 2004, at 8:42 AM, 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 []
> Sent: 13 December 2004 20:12
> To: Downey,PS,Paul,XSJ67A C
> Cc:
> Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE; wsa:To interaction with application protocols
> Hey Paul.
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2004 at 07:43:38PM -0000, wrote:
>> Hi Mark!
>> i think this is closely related to issue 6 "Message Property  
>> Optionality":
> 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.
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at>
Web Technologies and Standards, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Thursday, 16 December 2004 21:00:04 UTC