RE: Proposal for CR33

Sorry I missed last week's call, but I still haven't seen enough
evidence, including in last week's minutes, proving that RM's anonymous
template design is the least of all evils to be wholeheartedly in favor
of such a proposal.  An EPR with an anonymous URI (identifying the
address of the service using a standard mechanism that works well with
wsaw:Anonymous) plus a reference parameter (conveying other information
to the endpoint which it can use to help establish subsequent
connections) seems to accomplish all the desired goals.

 

I also recognize stability of the WS-RM and WS-A WSDL binding specs is
important, but something has to give here, perhaps the simplest path
forward is to add the simple advice to WS-RM not to combine RM with
wsaw:Anonymous="required" because of the unintended side effect of
prohibiting RM's pseudo-anonymous address.  The resulting loss of
descriptive capability doesn't seem catastrophic.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:54 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for CR33

 


Yup - the entire naming issue is a problem.  Obviously the current name
"Anonymous" doesn't 
convey what this CR is trying get to.  And as you and other have pointed
out perhaps "Connection" 
isn't right either.  I think it might be useful to first figure out what
this WSDL element is trying to 
define and then pick a name. 

So, let's start with this.... 

If the wsaw:ZZZ element were defined with the proper terminology to say
that this element 
is trying to convey whether or not the endpoint supports the notion of
sending responses 
(either normal or faults) asynchronously - would that be something
people could 
support? 

(I'm not asking for people to agree to the term 'asynchronously' but
rather to just the 
idea that everyone knows what it is supposed to mean.  If we can get
agreement to 
on the idea then we can move on to finding the right wording.) 

thanks 
-Doug 




"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 

08/30/2006 12:32 PM 

To

"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>,
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org> 

cc

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 

Subject

RE: Proposal for CR33

 

 

 




Still digesting this, but one comment is simply on the terminology and
names.  The concept (e.g. the property name) is termed "addressable
response endpoint" yet the syntax is named wsa:NewConnection.  Perhaps a
unified name like wsaw:Addressable would be more appropriate.  Although
"addressable" as a term does seem to include the anonymous URI so maybe
that doesn't work either...

I'm also concerned the preoccupation with "new connection" is
SOAP-Binding specific.  The WS-A Core doesn't mention connections at all
when defining the anonymous URI.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Cc: Doug Davis
> Subject: Proposal for CR33
> 
> Dug and I took an action during this week's call to send out a
proposal
> for CR33 [1]. Word version of the proposal is attached. It is a marked
> up version of section 3.2 [2] of the WS-Addressing 1.0 -- WSDL Binding
> spec. PDF (diffed and non-diffed  versions) are also attached.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr33
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#anonelement