- From: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2006 12:39:34 +0000
- To: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- Cc: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Comments below. public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 12/01/2006 10:34:05 PM: > > I spent a while yesterday going over this proposal with Katy, > > Paco, and > > our WS-Policy development team and we have a couple of concerns. > > > > 1. There is no way to mandate addressing in this proposal > > i.e. In normal > > form (once the wsp:Optionals etc have been expanded) the presence of > > wsaw:UsingAddressing only indicates addressing is supported. > > We need a way > > to say addressing is required. I don't have a proposal yet to > > deal with > > this. > > > > I am really not following this point. Could you clarify? > > If you do not use wsp:optional and use the standard attachment > mechanisms, why wouldn't WS-Addressing be NOT required. > > IF there is no alternative in the policy, the intersection algorithm and > thus the client will treat WS-Addressing assertion as an addition that > it needs to understood and thus make behavior required. > I agree that in those circumstances, the UsingAddressing assertion would be required for the client. However, the example states: > > <wsp:Policy> > > <wsaw:UsingAddressing> > > </wsp:Policy> > > This policy indicates that the subject supports the use of WS-Addressing. It explicitly does not say that inclusion of UsingAddressing in an alternative mandates the use of WS-Addressing, merely that it is supported, hence the concern. David
Received on Monday, 4 December 2006 12:39:47 UTC