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

Marc Goodner wrote:
>
> David, I think there is another option. If the jury finds guilty on
> the first charge I don't think 1.a or 1.b in your list below would
> need to be pursued. We could move straight into 1.c to make the
> wsaw:Anon marker policy friendly.
>
And then we can do 3?  Great!

Except ...

1a is not about anonymous per se and doesn't have much at all to do with
the first charge.  It's about the more general question of "If I can
accept (or cannot accept) a particular kind of URI as, say, ReplyTo",
how do I say that?  The URI in question might be WSA Anon (in which case
we're already special-cased), or it might be RMAnon (the original driver
for CR33), but it might just as well be mailto:* or http to certain
domains, or whatever.

It's exactly because this is not about anon per se that I would like to
see it separated from CR33 and any discussion of back-channels.

>  
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *David Hull
> *Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 9:05 AM
> *To:* Katy Warr
> *Cc:* bob@freunds.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06
> teleconference
>
>  
>
> Katy,
>
> I continue to be concerned that (1) below is a false dichotomy, as
> there are two largely separate issues involved.
>
> One issue is whether there should be some sort of extension point --
> not necessarily the one I proposed -- for describing what sort of
> addresses are and are not acceptable beyond the ones WSA defines
> (i.e., anon and none).  This is larger than WS-RX, though WS-RX is of
> course a driving use case, and independent of the notion of
> "back-channel" or "anonymous".  >From the mailing list, there appears
> to be at least some support for opening this issue, including (IIUC)
> the person who filed CR33.  It is also in line with the findings of
> the async task force.
>
> The other issue is whether we should define (or allude to, or allow
> others to define, or mention but leave undefined ...) some notion of
> "back-channel" beyond what we say in the SOAP binding about the anon
> address.  If so, there is the separate issue of how to define this. 
> My impression, perhaps incorrect, is that this proposal grew out of a
> fairly tactical fix to the language in the WSDL binding, though one
> could also argue that the notion of "back-channel" would be generally
> useful.
>
> I'm much more concerned about the first issue than the second.  I
> would go along with a proposal for the second, as long as it is
> well-defined.  I have, of course, expressed significant concern as to
> whether the current such proposal is well-defined.
>
> Framing the question as a choice between these two proposals for
> largely distinct questions would tend to imply that accepting one
> means rejecting the other, particularly given the length of time this
> whole thing has dragged on and the universal desire to get on with
> it.  This is why I would strongly prefer to see the issues split.  My
> expectation -- and Lord knows I could be wrong -- is that we could get
> to a yes/no decision on these separate issues more quickly, as the
> discussion would be more focused.
>
> Here is a more formal presentation of what I've already proposed in
> other messages:
>
>    1. Close CR 33 with no action.
>    2. Go to the pub.
>
> Oops ... sorry ... what I meant was
>
>    1. Close CR 33 with no action, and concomitantly:
>          1. Open an issue about a general extension point for
>             describing what addresses are/are not allowed.  Use my
>             previous proposal as a strawman.
>          2. Open an issue about a general definition of
>             "back-channel", with Anish & Paco's current proposal as a
>             strawman.  FWIW, I would support a version along the lines
>             of what Anish mentioned, tying "back-channel" to the SOAP
>             request-response MEP.
>          3. Open an issue about making our WSDL markings more
>             policy-friendly.  I don't have a proposal here, as it's
>             outside my comfort zone, but I believe others feel
>             strongly enough about it to drive it.
>    2. Bash the above issues to death
>    3. Go to the pub.
>
> I would propose covering these in the order given (except that (3)
> could perhaps be interspersed), as the resolution of (a) might
> possibly shed some light on (b), and (c) can probably be done better
> once the other two are in place.
>
> Katy Warr wrote:
>
>
> Hi Bob
>
> We have discussed CR33 for such a long time now - we must be in a
> position to make a decision.
> I propose that we formally vote in today's meeting in order to reach
> resolution.  
>
> I suggest the following staged approach:
> 1) (Assuming not close-with-no-action) Which proposal of those on
> table  (Paco's/Anish's vs DavidHull's)? Summarise proposals. Take a vote.
> 2) Does anyone need the solution to be reflected in WSDL, or will
> policy solution suffice? Take a vote.
> 3) Iron out details such as proposal syntax/names.  Namespace
> implications.
>
> Best regards
> Katy
>
>
> *"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> <mailto:bob@freunds.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> <mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
>
> 04/11/2006 17:54
>
> 	
>
> To
>
> 	
>
> "Mark Little" <mark.little@jboss.com> <mailto:mark.little@jboss.com>
>
> cc
>
> 	
>
> "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
>
> Subject
>
> 	
>
> RE: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06 teleconference
>
>  
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
> More like Spencer Tracy (Inherit the wind)
> -bob
>  
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@jboss.com] *
> Sent:* Thursday, November 02, 2006 10:45 AM*
> To:* Bob Freund*
> Cc:* [WS-A]*
> Subject:* Re: Jury Instructions/ Preliminary Agenda for 2006-11-06
> teleconference
>  
> Are you looking for a Henry Fonda person (12 Angry Men) ;-)?
>  
> Mark.
>  
>  
> On 31 Oct 2006, at 23:52, Bob Freund wrote:
>
>
> 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
>  
>
>
>  
>
>  
>