RE: WS-Addr issues

With:
- Jim wanting to get rid of ref props/params and Action (and by
extension I'm wondering if messageid and relatesTo should be removed
IHO), 
- Marc wanting to add lifecycle to EPRs and make To Optional,
- Anish wanting to make Service Qname required for EPRs, Address
optional,
Action a child of To:, 
- Glen wanting ref props/params as child of To:,

This feels to me like some people want to start from scratch.  I don't
think I signed up for a WS-Addressing 2.0 that will take N years.  

Dave 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jim Webber
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 1:47 PM
> To: Francisco Curbera; Marc Hadley
> Cc: Mark Little; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis
> Subject: RE: WS-Addr issues
> 
> 
> Paco:
> 
> > Action is not part of the EPR; I guess you mean make it an
> > optional message header. Still, I guess your point is like
> > the one about recognizing that the <To> information may be
> > carried by the transport: you do agree it must be there but
> > you argue it may be found in many different places (body,
> > SOAPAction, etc...). I would still disagree, however: this
> > just makes everything much more complicated than is really needed.
> 
> On the contrary it makes good sense to have addressing information
like
> "to" in an addressing spec. It makes less sense to have "intent" or
> "dispatch" information in an addressing spec, and (controversy ahead)
> very little sense whatsoever to have "context" information in an
> addressing spec.
> 
> So - in addition to seeing off wsa:action I would also like to see
> refprops/refparams removed. Certainly people will want to populate the
> header space with particular header blocks, but bodging this through
an
> addressing mechanism seems a poor factoring.
> 
> Jim
> --
> http://jim.webber.name

Received on Thursday, 4 November 2004 22:44:27 UTC