- From: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
- Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2007 13:37:24 -0700
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- CC: David Illsley <david.illsley@uk.ibm.com>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, "public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
Yes, this is the split use case I mean as well. -----Original Message----- From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:31 PM To: Marc Goodner Cc: David Illsley; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org Subject: Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata Looks I may have misunderstood what 'split' usecae means. I assumed that split usecase is where you want to explicitly assert that replyto must be non-anon and faultto must be anon. Is that what you mean by split usecase as well? -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > Proposal G does support the spit use case when the nested assertions are not used to further qualify the use of Addressing. > > -----Original Message----- > From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com] > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:13 PM > To: Anish Karmarkar > Cc: Marc Goodner; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org > Subject: Re: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata > > I know I've missed the last call... but unless it was in that one? I don't > remember dropping the split response usecase... and the e-mail from Tom on > March 23rd suggests he thinks the former interpretation provides support > for it. > > David Illsley > Web Services Development > MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN > +44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049) > david.illsley@uk.ibm.com > > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 04/02/2007 09:05:31 PM: > >> I didn't quite see it that way. Our nested assertions are not crafted to > >> supported the split usecase. Some time ago we decided against the split >> usecase. If we change our mind, we need to provide explicit support for >> that. The current proposal G regardless of the interpretation of what it > >> means to not have a nested assertion does not support the split usecase. >> >> IIRC, Dave Hull had sent a proposal to support the split usecase. > > > > > > Unless stated otherwise above: > IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number > 741598. > Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 2 April 2007 20:39:35 UTC