RE: WS-Addr issues

Jeff, 

That's inappropriate.  You deleted the part of my message that said I am
amenable to some changes.  

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 8:10 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: Jim Webber; Mark Little; Marc Hadley; Francisco Curbera;
public-ws-
> addressing@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis;
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
> 
> 
> On Nov 05, 2004, at 12:05 PM, David Orchard wrote:
> 
> >
> > I 100% believe in having open discussions about utility of something
in
> > a spec.
> as long as it doesn't result in any changes.
>    hmmmm....
> >  I also 100% believe in the charter of the WG and particularly
> > the schedule and basis of deliverables.
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 1:00 AM
> >> To: David Orchard
> >> Cc: Jim Webber; Marc Hadley; Francisco Curbera; public-ws-
> >> addressing@w3.org; Savas Parastatidis;
> > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >> Subject: Re: WS-Addr issues
> >>
> >>
> >> On 4 Nov 2004, at 22:44, David Orchard wrote:
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> Come on Dave, that's unfair. If you don't want to have open
> > discussions
> >> about the utility of something in a specification then don't take
it
> > to
> >> a standards body. If the real reason behind taking WS-Addr to W3C
was
> >> to get it rubber stamped as is, then I'd like to know that now.
> >>
> >> Mark.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> 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
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> --
> Jeff Mischkinsky
jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
> Director, Web Services Standards		+1(650)506-1975
> Consulting Member Technical Staff	500 Oracle Parkway, M/S 4OP9
> Oracle Corporation					Redwood Shores,
CA 94065

Received on Saturday, 6 November 2004 19:58:41 UTC