RE: Implementing CR33 - the Policy approach to UsingAddressing, etc

Given that CR32 says that the None URI is acceptable with wsaw:anonymous="required", and we are nuking wsaw:anonymous, so CR32 seems moot to me. 
 
However, is you are wanting to specify that None is acceptable when the nested assertion Anon is present, then that is a good point. That's not CR32, but I can see how you'd want to incorporate it. I don't recall any discussion of this, but it is a natural consequence, and probably doesn't need to be resolved as a separate issue.
 
Tony Rogers

________________________________

From: David Illsley [mailto:david.illsley@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Fri 05-Jan-07 2:24
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Implementing CR33 - the Policy approach to UsingAddressing, etc



I'm in total agreement with B, C & D

I disagree with the part in A that says that it makes CR32 moot. I
intended (and I believe we agreed in discussion) that the Addressing
policy assertion would indicate support for the none-uri per the
resolution to CR32. It appears this didn't make it into my proposal. Is
that something you could add editorially?

David

David Illsley
Web Services Development
MP211, IBM Hursley Park, SO21 2JN
+44 (0)1962 815049 (Int. 245049)
david.illsley@uk.ibm.com



From:
"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
To:
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Date:
01/03/2007 01:01 PM
Subject:
Implementing CR33 - the Policy approach to UsingAddressing, etc


Before I commit wholesale surgery upon the Metadata document, I want to
confirm the changes. This is my understanding of the required changes.

A.   Remove section 3.2 (wsaw:Anonymous) completely - the wsaw:Anonymous
element disappears completely; this makes CR32 (allowing None URI when
anon=required) moot. It also makes CR31 moot, I believe.

B.   Add a section (at the end) on Policy Assertions, describing the
Addressing assertion, and its two nested assertions: AnonymousResponses
and NonAnonymousResponses - this section will be pretty much a
cut-and-paste of David Illsley's proposal, with AddressingRequired changed
to Addressing.

C.   Do we or don't we retain wsaw:UsingAddressing as a WSDL marker? I
thought we were retaining it for WSDL 1.1, at least, but I'd appreciate
confirmation of that. I was planning to retain all of Section 3.1 intact,
except for removing 3.1.2 which describes using wsaw:UsingAddressing as a
policy assertion (this makes CR34 moot, too).

D.   I am assuming that the WSDL SOAP Module is being retained as a WSDL
marker in WSDL 2.0 - is that correct?

Is this an accurate summary, please? If it is, I can implement these
changes and pretty much complete the surgery to the Metadata document.

Tony Rogers