- From: Glen Daniels <gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 May 2005 15:43:24 -0400
- To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi folks: I took an action at the F2F to start some further discussion on the list re: last call issue #5 [1], and make a proposal if possible. The issue, if you'll recall, is about the utility (or not) of the [source endpoint] property and associated <wsa:From> header. We don't currently say anything at all about how this can be used, and therefore it's not a particularly testable feature. There appeared to be three (fairly evenly divided) camps: 1) Get rid of it (i.e. mark it "at risk") 2) Define some semantics for it 3) Leave it alone (it's a useful placeholder for whatever you want to do with it) We clearly couldn't come up with a strong consensus at the meeting to either mark this feature "at risk", leave it alone, or redefine the processing rules to give it some semantics. Therefore, more email discussion is warranted, hence this message. Let me say off the bat that I don't like choice (3) above, so I'm not going to consider that. This is not to say others shouldn't argue for it if they believe it's the right thing, but I think (1) or (2) are the real choices, since if we want to leave it undefined we could just remove it and let someone else define it themselves. That said.... If there are really good use cases for this kind of thing, I would propose that we go ahead and incorporate the [source endpoint] in the defaulting rules for replies and faults (for instance, faults - if no FaultTo, use ReplyTo; if no ReplyTo, use From). However, I think this hinges on their being good use cases, so I would suggest we continue the discussion by detailing those. I believe Anish and a couple of others had some in mind (NAT? Auditing?)... are folks willing to briefly write them up? If we cannot agree on good use cases, I think we should go ahead and mark it "at risk" and attempt to remove it. Thoughts / comments appreciated. Let's figure this puppy out and close it. Thanks, --Glen [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc5
Received on Monday, 16 May 2005 20:13:11 UTC