Re: A different hybrid approach

David Hull wrote:
...
> OTOH, I'm still wondering if it might be simplest of all for WS-RX to
> define an utterance for "MakeConnection spoken here" and be done with it
> (in which case CR33 can be Gudged).

Let's not get side-tracked here - this is an RM issue not a WSA issue
and should not be something WSA wastes its time discussing.

Regardless of what kind of advertising RM does WSA still has a problem.
In your other note you say you're 80% sure we can close w/no action,
let me see if I can increase that 20%  :-)

With the current form of wsaw:Anonymous there are two ways to look at
its purpose:
1 - it says whether two certain URIs are allowed/prohibited/required
    for wsa:ReplyTo (the two being anon and none)
2 - it says whether an endpoint prohibits/allows/requires sync vs async
    replies
I know you favor the first view, but I do believe that there are some
who favor the 2nd.  IMO, either way its broken.

Starting with #2, since I think that's easier. If people want the wsdl
marker to talk about the semantics of async vs sync replies then obviously
limiting it to just one URI (in the case of 'required') doesn't allow 
for other WS-Foo specs to define their own variant of anon. This clearly
is broken w.r.t. extensibility.

For #1 we still have a problem because how does can endpoint advertise 
that
it only supports WSA Anon and WS-Foo Anon?  wsaw:Anon=required won't allow
WS-Foo's anon, and wsaw:Anon=optional doesn't give the semantics we
want.  By that I mean, wsaw:Anon=optional doesn't tell anyone that
www.cnn.com is not allowed. 

In fairness, I think all 3 proposals (2 from paco/anish, and david's) can
solve CR33, each with their own pros and cons - but the status quo 
doesn't.

thanks,
-Doug