W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2004

RE: Minutes of MEP Task Force 2004-11-23

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 04:26:37 +0100
Message-ID: <99CA63DD941EDC4EBA897048D9B0061D0F676D05@uspalx20a.pal.sap.corp>
To: "'Amelia A Lewis'" <alewis@tibco.com>, David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org

>-----Original Message-----
>From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] 
>Sent: Tuesday, Nov 23, 2004 12:34 PM
>To: David Booth
>Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
>Subject: Re: Minutes of MEP Task Force 2004-11-23
>On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:04:37 -0500
>David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> wrote:
>> The bottom line is that I suggest -- actually JMarsh made this
>> suggestion on the call, but I didn't manage to minute it in the midst
>> of our debate :) -- that the service be permitted to characterize the
>> fault either as a violation of its policies about where replies are
>> permitted to be redirected or as an MEP violation.  How about letting
>> the service characterize the fault in whatever way it sees fit?  
>Violent agreement.
>Sorry, I'm afraid that in the discussion, it must have appeared that
>Roberto and I were saying that the service MUST do something,
>specifically determine the node identity associated with both
>origination address and reply-to address.  No.  I think it 
>*is* possible
>that a node could do so, and that, doing so, it could then feasibly
>fault with the reason "MEP violation."  It could also have a set of
>policies, associated with or independent of node identity association
>with addresses, which could cause a fault in the same circumstances,
>certainly (as well as, potentially, in other circumstances; policy
>covers a wide territory).  Both faults are possible.  If our
>disagreement during the call was based on the notion that we would
>somehow require the service to perform some form of node-identity
>checking, then I must have misspoken.  I would like the service to be
>*permitted* to fault in this manner, if, by means unspecified, it
>determines that the provided reply-to address is in fact *not*
>associated with the requesting node.  That's all.
>That in turn suggests that best practice is to characterize 
>exchanges in
>which the response is *expected* by both sides in the exchange 
>to return
>to the requesting node (for some definition of node identity), but that
>if the service permits or expects the response to be directed to some
>third node, then a different MEP should be advertised.
>I think that most interactions are likely to be those in which the
>service expects the response to return to the requester, so that our
>publication of only that MEP is perfectly reasonable (although we
>*could* provide the additional third-party in-out MEP; it wouldn't be
>that difficult to show the binding in a non-normative note, for HTTP,
>using WSA or WSMD or both).

Hi Amy, 

I am just trying to understand what you are exactly suggesting. 

Are you suggesting that we allow utilization of WSA with the additional third-party in-out MEP ONLY (if we were to provide it in the note) or assume that its also possible to use it with the in-out MEP? 

I am just trying to find out everyone's expectations here, since I missed the last concall. 



Received on Thursday, 25 November 2004 03:27:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:45 UTC