Re: Action item - lc129

On Apr 16, 2006, at 10:31 PM, 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.

I'm not sure about the SHOULD in the above. I'd only expect an RFC  
2119 keyword if we were recommending doing something specific that  
could help with interop. I don't think it makes sense to recommend  
(in an RFC 2119 sense) doing something without specifying exactly  
what since this is an inherently untestable assertion.


> 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].
> 0019.html

Marc Hadley <marc.hadley at>
Business Alliances, CTO Office, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 24 April 2006 19:30:15 UTC