RE: Clarification for WS-RX

Grumble!
 
The second one (at least) should read "...for an endpoint such as
ReplyTo or FaultTo in the request part of a SOAP..." - so we exclude the
use of anonymous in To.
 
Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com <blocked::mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> 
 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Thursday, 23 February 2006 6:46
To: Yalcinalp, Umit
Cc: David Orchard; paul.downey@bt.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Re: Clarification for WS-RX


Here, then, are two simple resolutions


1.	Close with no action.  Simple.  Done.
	
2.	Section 5 to read as below.  The rules now apply to any
endpoint.  Simple.  Done.
	


5.1.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP


When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
<http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous>  is specified for an
endpoint in a request message then there is no change to the SOAP 1.1/
HTTP binding. 


5.1.2 SOAP 1.2


When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
<http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous>  is specified for an
endpoint in the request part of a SOAP request-response message exchange
[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-soap
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#SOAP12-PART2> ], then any
message sent to that endpoint MUST be the response part of the same SOAP
request-response message exchange [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts
<http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-soap
.html?content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#SOAP12-PART2> ].


Yalcinalp, Umit wrote: 

	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.