RE: Clarification for WS-RX

It seems to me we are just making a big deal out of an issue which is
easily fixed here in WS-A. 

We separate the problem into two separate issues: 

--define the anonymous URI's semantics 
--define the WS-A MAP semantics for reply endpoint/fault endpoint with
anonymous value. This wg can provide specific semantics for these two
MAPs we define which builds on anonymous URI and their relationship to
MEPs.

Nothing more, nothing less. 

Katy's proposal for CR23 [1] is definitely in the right direction and we
should fix this problem in this manner, by careful decomposition of the
problem. 

Intermixing the solution of these two issues and thinking in a very
restricted sense for the semantics of anonymous is not a good approach.
As a matter of fact, fusing the two solutions breaks composition for
other groups. The semantics of Anonymous should not be restricted to
specific MEPs, but can be further used to define the semantics in
certain MEPs and WS-A MAPs. Fusing the two prevents the composition, IMO
and I am weary of the tendency here. 

WS-RX can define the semantics of acksTo (which it owns) based on the
anonymous URI only. It can crisply define how acksTo can be used in its
own context and in conjunction with its own protocol exchanges/when it
is allowed, etc. 

It seems to me that resolving CR23 in this manner, we do not hinder any
composition, not the other way around. 

--umit


[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0167.ht
ml

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> David Orchard
> Sent: Wednesday, Feb 22, 2006 8:27 AM
> To: paul.downey@bt.com; dmh@tibco.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Clarification for WS-RX
> 
> 
> OTOH, the last thing I want is some profile to crop up that 
> "fixes" for
> WS-RX how "broken" WS-A is.  At the end of the day, the stuff is
> supposed to be composable, etc.
> 
> Cheers,
> Dave 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> > [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
> > paul.downey@bt.com
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2006 6:09 AM
> > To: dmh@tibco.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Clarification for WS-RX
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > I'm a bit loath to send this to the whole WS-RX list, and I think 
> > > there are enough WS-RXperts here to answer, so ...
> > 
> > but this is Web service addressing and I'm bothered that we 
> > do seem to keep descending into glorious detail on how WS-RX 
> > may or may not work, rather than answering tractable LC and 
> > CR comments from that WG wrt our specifications.
> > 
> > Paul
> > 
> > 
> ______________________________________________________________
> _________
> Notice:  This email message, together with any attachments, 
> may contain
> information  of  BEA Systems,  Inc.,  its subsidiaries  and  
> affiliated
> entities,  that may be confidential,  proprietary,  
> copyrighted  and/or
> legally privileged, and is intended solely for the use of the 
> individual
> or entity named in this message. If you are not the intended 
> recipient,
> and have received this message in error, please immediately 
> return this
> by email and then delete it.
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 22 February 2006 18:35:47 UTC