Issue i048 - summary of discussion

I took an informal (to judge from its absence in the minutes)  action item
to summarize the dicsussion of issue 48. Here is is; please comment if you
think I forgot/mischaracterized any of the main arguments of the
discussion:

1. New issue [1] is proposed out of the following concerns: Section 2.3 as
modified per resolution of issue 1 has the consequence of requiring two
EPRs with the same address field to correspond to endpoints with identical
metadata. Problems and concerns raised about this new requirements are many
[2, 3, 4]:

    *. it makes common Web services deployment architectures out of
compliance with the WS-Addressing specification. In particular, it would
prevent gateway configurations.
    *. it is over-prescriptive and inconsistent with the general approach
of making WS-A a minimum common base able to support on a wide variety of
usages scenarios and more complex protocols (lifecycle or comparison
itself).
    *. it a brand new restriction no supported by any other Web services
specification.
    *. it is an accidental result of a leftover section whose only purpose
was always to distinguish between properties and parameters.

The proposal is to remove Section 2.3 of the specification [2].

2. Views opposed to this proposal have been expressed. The major arguments
are:

   *. removing Section 2.3 would change the semantics of reference
parameters to explicitly maintain the URI to metadata 1 to 1 relationship
[5].
   *. given a gateway configuration, a common network address can be
considered to be endowed with the union of the metadata of all services
that share that address [6].
   *. it is always possible to use different logical addresses for all
these services even if they share the same network endpoint [7].

Counter-proposal: remove Section 2.3 but rewrite description of reference
parameters to maintain the one to one relationship between URI address and
endpoint metadata,  further clarifying the point by introducing the term
"resource" (as in Web resource) into the WS-A specification to indicate
individual Web services [5]. I assume that there is a second implicit
counter-proposal of closing the issue w/o change to the spec.

Paco

[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i048
[2]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0145.html
[3]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0186.html
[4]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0170.html
[5]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0195.html
[6] Stated by Marc H. in 1/31 telecom, not refected in the minutes,
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/01/31-ws-addr-minutes.html#item08
[7] Stated by Marc H. in 1/31 telecom, not refected in the minutes,
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/5/01/31-ws-addr-minutes.html#item08

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 15:14:11 UTC