Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference

+1
-Doug




David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
11/02/2006 09:24 AM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Bob Freund <bob@freunds.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, 
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject
Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference






CR 33, day 91 ...

Perhaps the relevant points are:
The wsaw: markers need an extension point to cover address URI other than 
the ones WSA defines.
wsaw:Anonymous ain't it
Separately, whatever WSDL markers we come up with have to work equally 
well as policy utterances.

Doug Davis wrote: 

Bob, 
 w.r.t. the first charge, I don't really follow the logic. Even without 
that sentence other specifications can still define whatever URIs they 
want with whatever semantics they want.  So, the problem that CR33 tries 
to address would still exist - basically, should the wsaw:Anonymous marker 
deal with semantics (async vs sync) or should it just focus on a more 
restrictive statement where it focuses on just WSA's special URIs (anon 
and none) without consideration of future extensibility. 
thanks, 
-Doug 



"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
10/31/2006 06:52 PM 


To
"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> 
cc

Subject
Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference








Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury 
All of the testimony has been given, and the evidence provided for your 
inspection.  The time has come to conclude your deliberations. 
  
You will be asked to decide the following questions with regard to the 
charges raised against WS-Addressing: 
  
First Charge: 
One count of flirting with anonymous addresses of unknown character 
without any intention of establishing a meaningful relationship. 
  
Soap binding 5.2.1 invites other anonymous addresses. 
  
?Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other 
behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI).? 
  
If the Jury finds that the WG didn?t really mean it, then the spec shall 
be found guilty of this charge. 
If found guilty of this charge, then the WG shall issue an errata removing 
the flirtatious prose and cr33 shall be closed with no action. 
If found innocent, then the WG is sentenced to accommodate such anonymous 
addresses without prejudice and to modify the WSDL binding and the policy 
assertions accordingly. 
  
How do you find? 
  
Second Charge: 
Core and Soap binding are inconsistent: The core spec is section 3.2.1 
says that anonymous is a recognizable uri detectable with simple string 
comparison for "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous".  If the 
Jury returns a guilty verdict to the first charge, then this charge is 
moot once the sentence has been served.  If the Jury returns an innocent 
verdict to the first charge, and a guilty verdict to the second charge, 
then the WG shall be sentenced to decide how to remove this inconsistency. 

  
How do you find? 
  
Third charge: 
One count of not being policy friendly 
Content in the element is not well matched with the policy framework that 
is forming into a specification.   
  
If found guilty, the mandatory sentence is that all markers are to be 
meaningful by their name alone which touches the WSDL binding as well as 
the policy assertion 
  
How do you find? 
  
Thanks 
-bob