- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 19:52:28 -0500
- To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Cc: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Message-id: <42420F4C.5010600@tibco.com>
This message details TIBCO's reasons for objecting to the
WS-Addressing core and SOAP binding documents going to last call. There
are several specific reasons, all of which center around the Message
Addressing Properties (hereafter referred to as MAPs), and particularly
around issues i050 and i054, which we consider to have been closed
hastily. We have no objection to the current formulation of EPRs and
indeed believe that WS-Addressing would provide considerable value on
the basis of EPRs alone.
We have made our opposition to the current resolution of i054 known and
have formally voted against this resolution. We are prepared to
formally object to the core and SOAP binding specifications as they
currently stand on the basis of this issue. We also note that a new
proposed resolution for this putatively closed issue has appeared since
the vote concerning last call was taken.
Whatever the final resolution of i050 and i054, there currently remain
significant questions as to the meaning of MAPs in the specification.
Many such questions, including those relating to the objections above,
have been raised in public discussion over the past two weeks but have
so far gone unanswered. It is our opinion that several of these
questions are of such a nature that if there is any significant doubt
concerning them the specification is not sufficiently well-defined to be
useful. We do not claim that none of them can be answered, and in fact
we hope that many of them can be answered quickly. However, until they
are, we cannot consider the discussion of the specification to be
materially complete and cannot recommend putting the document out for
public comment.
These questions include
* Whether the MAPs are considered to contain only those properties
defined in the WS-Addressing specifications or whether other
specifications may amend them
* If other specifications can amend this set, in what sense may it
be said to be specified by WS-Addressing
* Exactly how a future specification requiring endpoints beyond the
presently defined reply and fault endpoints should define these
* In particular whether such a specification would have to define a
new SOAP module to hold properties parallel to those defined in
the MAPs
* How the current definition of MAPs as mandatory properties would
apply to existing SOAP/HTTP interactions which have no notion of
such properties
* Whether existing specifications would need to be amended to
mention MAPs and/or their corresponding headers in order to
leverage the asynchronous request/reply pattern to which the MAPs
are evidently tailored, as suggested by the explicit mention of
ReplyTo and other headers in specifications such as WS-Transfer
and WS-Enumeration
* What level of MAP extensibility is actually required by the
WS-Addressing charter.
Please consider this listing as a request to open these outstanding
questions as formal issues.
While we understand and indeed share the desire of the group to get to
last call as quickly as reasonably possible, given the current state of
the specification and the discussion around it, we regret to say that we
cannot support the documents going to last call at this point, and so
must object.
Received on Thursday, 24 March 2005 00:57:42 UTC