RE: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal

This version generally looks good.

Some comments:


*       Add a reference to RFC 3987.

*       Appendix A.2.  Comment I2 about the cardinality of EventTypes needs to be addressed.

*       Appendix A.2.1. The sentence "An Event Source there MUST NOT exist more than one EventDescription document" need to be correctly worded.

*       Appendix A.2.2.1 Binding for Unwrapped notifications is currently TBD. What is the plan for defining the binding? I prefer that the proposal either has the binding defined. If this needs more time, I suggest deleting the section and adding it later. This helps avoid confusion when we go into Last Call.

*       In the F2F discussions on this issue, we noted that we need to consider defining a MIME type for the Event Descriptions to be consistent with usage of other transmission types. I suggest this proposal include a MIME type for Event Descriptions.

Thanks.

From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 4:11 PM
To: Gilbert Pilz
Cc: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal


see if this version is any better.  We need to be careful because its not correct to say how many MetadataSections can appear, rather we need to talk about metadata documents.  For any one metadata document there could be at least 3 different MetadataSections returned (epr, uri, metadata).


thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org

08/24/2009 06:09 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc

"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

Subject

Re: issue 6401/6661: combined proposal







I agree with the idea that we shouldn't repeat what MEX specifies, however, you have removed the parts where it states that the mex:Metadata for a single Event Source can contain at most one wse:EventDescriptions element and only one Notification WSDL per Notification Format/@Identifier. These are key constraints that need to be stated somewhere.

- gp

On 8/24/2009 1:38 PM, Doug Davis wrote:

Overall I like the flow of this but I tried to remove some extra stuff that I think just adds verbosity w/o a good reason and will just lead to confusion ( like duplicating what MEX and WSDL already tell us).
I also removed the unchanged portions of WS-Eventing - to keep it below the w3c mailing list size restriction.  :-)



thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com<mailto:dug@us.ibm.com>
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.

public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org<mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org> wrote on 08/24/2009 02:23:32 PM:

> Attached (or inlined as the case may be) is draft 6 of a proposal
> for issues 6401/6661. This proposal allows for the use of both the
> EventDescriptions element and Format-specific Notification WSDLs.
> There are still some open issues with this version of the proposal,
> but these can be worked out by the WG. Note that, as per our
> agreement at the last F2F, the section that describes the binding of
> wse:EventDescriptions to a Unwrapped Notification WSDL has been marked "TBD".
>
> Thanks to Ram, Wu, and Li for their help and feedback. Thanks to
> their input I think we've got something in which the combination of
> EventDescriptions and Notification WSDLs offers some value beyond
> merely serving as a political compromise.
>
> - gp