- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2006 10:14:30 -0700
- To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Paco,
How does this solve the interop problem?
Wouldn't' you need a 'MUST' for the fault (or at least a 'SHOULD' as
suggested by David?) along with a specified fault?
-Anish
--
Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
> 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.html
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 17:14:37 UTC