- From: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>
- Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 10:59:58 -0400
- To: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
- Cc: humphrey@cs.virginia.edu, wasson@virginia.edu, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
There's a good thread on this subject starting at [1] - opaqueness is fine in principle but breaks down in practice due to the way RefPs become SOAP headers. Also note that RefPs have an IsReferenceParameter="true" attribute added to their root element when added to a SOAP message so they are changed albeit in a minor way. Marc. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Nov/ 0281.html On Apr 26, 2005, at 9:40 AM, Savas Parastatidis wrote: > > Dear all, > > This issue came up during some discussions with folks at the University > of Virginia (Marty and Glenn cc'd) while discussing an implementation > of > WS-Transfer and how EPRs were used... > > My understanding of the Ws-Addressing specification is that the > [Reference Parameters] information element item is opaque and that its > children should be included in messages as header information elements > without change. The specification states: > > "Reference parameters are provided by the issuer of the endpoint > reference and are assumed to be opaque to consuming applications." > > The "assumed" bit is the reason for this message. Should there be > normative language here? Either SHOULD or MUST? Are the consumers of an > EPR allowed to reason about the contents of the [reference parameters]? > > My apologies if the above has already been discussed and a decision > already made. > > Regards, > -- > Savas Parastatidis > http://savas.parastatidis.name > > > > > --- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at sun.com> Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 9 May 2005 15:00:21 UTC