RE: New Alternative G to resolve LC comment on WS addr metadata

Tom,

I don't understand your comment. Can you elaborate?

- gp 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:57 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Marc Goodner; Anish Karmarkar; 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
> 
> 
> 
> Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> > I feel partially responsible for this misunderstanding; I described 
> > the split-response use case here:
> > 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0046.
> > html
> >
> > In that message I didn't make it clear whether the 
> appearance of both 
> > non-anon and anon addresses in different EPRs in the same message 
> > should be "allowed" or "mandated". What I meant was that 
> they should 
> > be "allowed"; in other words, it should be possible to construct a 
> > single policy alternative that allows for a non-anon 
> ReplyTo and an anon FaulTo.
> >
> > I think what Anish is talking about is the idea of a policy 
> > alternative that says "ReplyTo MUST be non-anon and FaulTo MUST be 
> > anon". We need to give
> >   
> As long as the response sender can support both modes, it is enough.  
> The request sender decides which
> epr to put in fault to and reply to.
> 
> Tom
> > this use case a different name to prevent confusion. I suggest 
> > "Per-EPR address constraints". IMO this group has already rejected 
> > this use case several times.
> >
> > - gp
> >
> >   
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> >> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Marc 
> >> Goodner
> >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:37 PM
> >> To: Anish Karmarkar
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >> 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>       
> >>     
> 
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> 
> 
>