Re: Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr metadata LC comment

Tom
We have discussed scenarios in previous wsa meetings where a client may 
need to mix anon/non-anon on a single request:
- e.g.  replyTo=anon, faultTo=nonAnon
As wsam:AnonymousResponses and wsam:NonAnonymousResponses are 
contradictory requirements, there does not appear to be a way for a 
service indicate that it could accept this combination on a single request 
(as these assertions specify a single hard requirement which applies to 
both replyTo and faultTo).
regards,
Katy




Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-policy-request@w3.org
02/03/2007 20:36
Please respond to
tom@coastin.com


To
WS-Addressing <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, ws policy 
<public-ws-policy@w3.org>
cc

Subject
Corrected Proposed Alternative A for resolution of ws addr metadata LC 
comment






I never posted a complete change proposal for Alternative A (which 
defines the nested assertions of Addressing assertion as requirements, 
with absence implying Prohibition.

I post this for completeness.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt                 email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133


[attachment "ws-AddrMetadataPolicyEdits-altA.pdf" deleted by Katy 
Warr/UK/IBM] 






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