- From: Cahill, Conor P <conor.p.cahill@intel.com>
- Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 03:31:45 -0800
- To: "John Kemp" <john.kemp@nokia.com>, "ext Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Christopher B Ferris" <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
+1 Conor > -----Original Message----- > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of John Kemp > Sent: Friday, February 10, 2006 4:56 AM > To: ext Mark Baker > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; public-ws-addressing@w3.org > Subject: Re: WSA From > > > On Feb 9, 2006, at 9:29 PM, ext Mark Baker wrote: > > > > > I've seen this too. HTTP "From" works similarly; > > > > http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.22 > > Quoted from the referenced link: > > "The From request-header field, if given, SHOULD contain an > Internet e-mail address for the human user who controls the > requesting user agent." [...] > > Clearly an identifier, not a physical endpoint. > > And: > > On 2/9/06, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > >> > >> In many B2B scenarios with which I am familiar, the "From" > is used to > >> identify the party that sent the message. It is not intended to be > >> some sort of physical endpoint > >> (typically) but a logical > >> identifier that serves to identify the party (e.g. http:// > >> www.ibm.com/) > > Indeed. > > So, shouldn't wsa:From be simply a URI, rather than an EPR? > And having used such a syntax, shouldn't we imbue it also > with the semantics of an identifier, in a manner similar to > that of the above- referenced section of RFC2616? > > - JohnK > >
Received on Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:32:04 UTC