Consolodated list of Alternatives A thru D to resolved WS ADDR LC comment

I thought it would be good to close my action Item from WS addressing WG 
with this
summary of my 4 proposed solutions.  (I now prefer alterntiave D)

Alternatives A through C would rely on multiple policy alternatives to 
indicate that a response sender can use either Anonymous or 
Non-anonymous Replies.

Alternative A: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0017.html

Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is 
anything other than wsa:Anonymous URI.
Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies 
prohibition for that alternative.
  (one problem with Alternative A is that missing nested assertion has 
same meaning as presence of the other nested assertion, since 
NonAnonymous URI is a uri which is NOT Anonymous)

Alternative B: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Feb/0016.html

Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is defined 
as any "connectable" URI..
Missing nested assertion within an Anonymous assertion implies 
prohibition for that alternative.
  (one problem with Alternative B is difficulty in defining 
"connectable" URI in a transport independent manner)

Alternative C: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0016.html

Summary: Define AnonymousResponses and NonAnonymous responses as 
requirements for sending responses.  NonAnonymous EPR address is defined 
as anything other than wsa:Anonynous URI.. Missing nested assertion 
within an Anonymous assertion has no meaning with respect to use of 
response URIs.
 

Alternative D: 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2007Mar/0018.html

Summary: Remove nested policy assertions for wsa:Addressing assertion.

I personally could live with either alternative D or C, but prefer 
Alternative D. 

If we pick Alternative C, I see the only practical thing for a response 
sender to put in its policy is three alternatives (one for addressing 
with nonAnon repolies, another for addressing with anon replies, and 
another with addressing showing no nested policy assertion).  However 
this is no better than saying that addressing is supported.

If we select Alternatives A , B, or C, we should probable add text 
stating that the policy attached to a response sender subject pertains 
to individual instances of responses.  Also clarify that if alternatives 
exist for either non anon or anon, that different response EPRs in the 
same requiest can obey any of the allowed alternatives.

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

Received on Monday, 5 March 2007 17:40:10 UTC