RE: retaining the {addressing} property?

Ah, that is a solution of which I had not thought. If we remove the SOAPmodule and the {addressing} property, then my work is dramatically simpler.
 
We'll need a vote to do that, though, it is a non-trivial modification of the document, and much more than an editorial change.
 
We will need this on the agenda for the next telcon.
 
The current editor's draft reflects almost all of the other changes to the Metadata document.
 
Would it be useful to those considering the removal of the SOAPmodule if I produced an editor's draft that incorporated the changes?
 
Tony Rogers
CA, Inc
Senior Architect, Development
tony.rogers@ca.com
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C

________________________________

From: Philippe Le Hegaret [mailto:plh@w3.org]
Sent: Thu 11-Jan-07 0:51
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; david.illsley@uk.ibm.com
Subject: Re: retaining the {addressing} property?



Rogers, Tony said:
> We are removing the UsingAddressing WSDL marker. I naively assumed that
> meant removing the entire section 3.1. Upon more detailed study, I am
> fairly sure that that is NOT the case.
>
> Do we intend to retain the {addressing} property which 3.1.1 introduced as
> an extension to the WSDL 2.0 component model? I suspect that we need to do
> so.

I would say that we don't retain it, since the policy assertions are
accessible through the {policy} property defined by the WS-Policy
attachment specification. Of course, we could always define our policy
assertions to affect the WSDL Component Model if it is part of the policy
alternative in effect, but this is not a current practice as far as I
know. I can see advantages for implementing it that way though.

> Do we also retain Table 3-1 showing the effect of the {addressing}
> property?

Yes, except that it should be recast to show the effect of the policy
assertions, if the policy assertion is part of the policy alternative in
effect.

> So I think we should have 3.1 specifying the policy assertions, and their
> effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.2 specifying the SOAP module,
> and its effect on the {addressing} property, then 3.3 describing the
> {addressing} property and the presence/absence of MAPs in the message.

I forgot about the SOAP module definition. We avoided the nightmare of the
combination of UsingAddressing and Addressing policy assertion but we
still have it with the SOAP module... I didn't see much support for this
in the past so my opinion is that it should be remove unless someone can
come up with a good story of how it combines with the policy alternatives.

Philippe