Re: CR 20: amalgamated proposal

+1, I'd also much prefer to keep the defaulting at the infoset  
serialization level.

Marc.

On Feb 16, 2006, at 4:16 PM, Jonathan Marsh wrote:

>
> My 2c - this change isn't cost-effective.
>
> The proposal is apparently motivated by cleaning up the so-called
> problem of specifying a default that might not make sense in some
> situations (but that's why it's a default that can be overridden  
> instead
> of a constant!)  It's not clear that abstracting out defaulting  
> from XML
> infoset representation (which is already confusingly abstracted  
> from the
> properties on the one side, and from SOAP headers on the other)  
> makes a
> whole lot of sense.  Why pick defaulting to move from one level of
> abstraction to another and not, say, the optionality of the elements?
> The previous proposal to make [destination] optional shows how  
> arbitrary
> this "solution" is.
>
> The shifting sands of these abstractions could be subject to lots more
> discussion, ref my proposal to roll the specs together and collapse  
> some
> of these abstractions (XML infoset and SOAP headers would become one)
> was not accepted by the group.  I can live with the WG's will, grumble
> grumble, but IMO further twiddling adds unnecessary complication to  
> the
> already complicated set of abstractions and editorially obscures the
> defaulting mechanism by moving it to an unexpected location in another
> spec.
>
> I'm worried about any change to the specs at this stage because of the
> general concern of unintended side-effects as we're trying to lock  
> down
> interop results.  This change isn't directly motivated by results  
> of the
> interop work, so it's not essential to address.  The status quo
> functions perfectly well, despite the aesthetic concerns which  
> appear to
> be addressable only at the expense of whatever simplicity we have  
> left.
>
>
> Therefore my preference is to close CR20 with no action.
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
>> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
>> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 11:02 AM
>> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>> Subject: CR 20: amalgamated proposal
>>
>>
>> Here is a joint proposal to resolve issue 20.
>>
>> The proposal does the following:
>>
>> a) Gets rid of defaulting in the Core, but allow bindings to specify
>> defaults.
>> b) Does not change the cardinality of [destination] or wsa:To in the
> Core
>> c) specifies that messages on the "back channel" must have the value
> of
>> 'anon' for the [destination] property.
>> d) specifies 'anon' as the default for messages on the back channel.
>> e) incorporates wordings similar to Paul Downey's which say that
> outside
>> of this particular scope this spec does not define any particular
>> semantics for the 'anon' URI.
>>
>> Please note that this proposal keeps the resolution text of CR4,  
>> which
>> either got removed as a result of resolution of CR15 or was an
> editorial
>> oversight (I have already sent a separate email for this). If we do
> not
>> keep the resolution of CR4 then the editors will have to change the
>> wordings to make it fit better.
>>
>> Proposal:
>> --------
>>
>> 1) In the Core spec [1], section 3.2, change:
>> -----
>>    /wsa:To
>>       This OPTIONAL element (whose content is of type xs:anyURI)
> provides
>> the value for the [destination] property. If this element is NOT
> present
>> then the value of the [destination] property is
>> "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous".
>> -----
>>
>> to:
>> -----
>>    /wsa:To
>>       This OPTIONAL element (whose content is of type xs:anyURI)
> provides
>> the value for the [destination] property. A binding of Addressing  
>> to a
>> specific protocol may define a default value for wsa:To. In the
> absence
>> of such a default, a value for wsa:To MUST be specified.
>> -----
>>
>> 2) In the SOAP binding spec [2], in section 5.1 add:
>> -----
>> {The para below is the resolution text for CR4 and included here for
> flow}
>> When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified as
>> the address of an EPR, such as the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the
>> underlying SOAP protocol binding provides a channel to the specified
>> endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding supporting the SOAP
>> request-response message exchange pattern provides such a channel for
>> response messages. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding [SOAP 1.2
>> Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP response.
>>
>> {The next 2 paras below are new}
>> Messages on such a channel must have a [destination] property  
>> value of
>> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous". Additionally, this
> is
>> the default value of such responses if the [destination] value is not
>> specified.
>>
>> Outside of this usage, this specification assigns no particular
>> semantics to the use of
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
>> for the [destination] property in this binding.
>>
>>
>> -Paco & Anish
>> --
>>
>>
>
>

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