RE: Action item - lc129

Looks good to me.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Francisco Curbera
> Sent: Sunday, April 16, 2006 7:32 PM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Action item - lc129
> 
> 
> 
> This is my take on expanding "option 4" in Jonathan's mail [1]
("Remove
> the
> default. Lack of wsaw:Anonymous means there are no claims about
Anonymous
> support."). I am not proposing here the changes necessary to fully
> incorporate a resolution of the issue, only proposing a clarification
of
> the assumptions clients would be able to make when no wsaw:Anonymous
> element is present.
> 
> "A WSDL or policy based service description that includes the
> wsaw:UsingAddressing but no a wsaw:Anonymous marker makes no assertion
> regarding a requirement or a constraint in the use of the anonymous
URI in
> EPRs contained in messages sent to the endpoint. In this cases,
endpoint
> service descriptions SHOULD use additional metadata, such as WSDL
bindings
> or additional policy assertions, to indicate any requirements or
> restrictions on the use of the anonymous URI by clients. However, in
the
> absence of additional metadata, clients of the endpoint MAY assume
that
> the
> service endpoint follows the behavior indicated by the 'optional'
value of
> the wsaw:Anonymous marker. An endpoint MAY send a fault back to the
client
> if a message received uses the anonymous URI in a way that is
unsupported
> by the endpoint."
> 
> [1].
>
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Apr/0019.ht
ml
>

Received on Monday, 17 April 2006 17:07:41 UTC