- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:34:12 -0000
- To: <dmh@tibco.com>, <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi David > In short, a case can be made for closing CR33 with no action, A big +1. > and then going on to wrangle over questions like: > > * Should we try to fill the hole about cnn.com (i.e., should we > define a way of saying what's allowed /besides /anon and none)? Any meaningful application is going to maintain whitelists or blacklists of allowed URIs and we want to do this, but outside of a WS-Addressing EPR or WSDL binding. As for other specs defining URIs which WS-Addressing has to understand as being an alias for "anon", no thanks! > * Should we try to make our WSDL markers more policy-friendly? Absolutely, 100%. Let's be blunt - anything else is going to be DOA. > * Should we try to define some general marker describing a > "backchannel" or "new connection" or some other form of "sync" vs. > "async" distinction? Hmmm. A WSDL marker that can be used inside Policy? Maybe. A marker on the wire, well we shipped 1.0 without one. So, no thanks! > Much of the reason we haven't closed CR33, IMHO, is because we are > simultaneously trying to discuss these three other issues, which are > proving much more contentious (except the second, which seems to have > fairly general support). +1 Splitting the issue may be helpful if the protagonists agree. Paul
Received on Tuesday, 31 October 2006 18:51:01 UTC