Closure of CR04

I looked at the cr issues list 
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html

Which has the following for the resolution of cr04

cr4 The utility of the anonymous address in SOAP binding specification 
is too restrictive soap - design - closed


Description
OASIS WS-RX tc needs to utilize the semantics of the anonymous URI as 
defined by the WS-Addressing specification as the address of other EPRs 
that it defines, in particular as the value of wsrm:AcksTo EPR defined 
in the WS-ReliableMessaging specification[1]. OASIS WS-RX tc noticed 
that WS-Addressing SOAP binding specification defines the semantics of 
the anonymous URI we need, but only wrt the ReplyTo and FaultTo EPRs in 
Section 3.5.
Origin
Ümit Yalçınalp (source)
Proposal 12005-09-26
The paragraph in question should be extended to allow other EPRs to use 
the same semantics defined for the anonymous address
Resolution2005-09-29 accepted by originator
"the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR" -> "an EPR", "..provides such a channel 
*for response messages.*"
----
The minutes citation points at the following resolution:
--
CR Issue: Anonymous Address Utility

umit: Loosening definition to include EPRs from other specifications. 
The issue is in 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Sep/0035.html

anish: Change the semantics to say "The anonymous URI references back 
channel for any binding"

glen: Two changes: "Replace ReplyTo or Faulto with "an"

glen: Add "for response messages" at the end of sentence beginning with 
"Any underlying protoco..."

RESOLUTION: Change to: "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."

--

I note that these minutes do not state that proposal 1 text was approved 
by the WG.
namely
Proposal 12005-09-26
The paragraph in question should be extended to allow other EPRs to use 
the same semantics defined for the anonymous address


Am I missing some other discussion which added the text proposed by 
proposal 1?

Tom Rutt

Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 15:59:01 UTC