|vb...@hp.com||Mar 29, 2004 4:00 pm|
|Sedukhin, Igor S||Mar 29, 2004 5:48 pm|
|Vambenepe, William N||Mar 29, 2004 6:15 pm|
|Sedukhin, Igor S||Mar 30, 2004 1:30 pm|
|Murray, Bryan P.||Mar 30, 2004 1:47 pm|
|Vambenepe, William N||Mar 30, 2004 2:14 pm|
|Sedukhin, Igor S||Mar 30, 2004 2:18 pm|
|Vambenepe, William N||Mar 30, 2004 2:32 pm|
|Murray, Bryan P.||Mar 30, 2004 2:56 pm|
|Fred Carter||Mar 30, 2004 3:15 pm|
|Sedukhin, Igor S||Mar 30, 2004 5:21 pm|
|Sedukhin, Igor S||Mar 30, 2004 5:40 pm|
|Murray, Bryan P.||Mar 31, 2004 11:25 am|
|Mark Ellison||Mar 31, 2004 1:45 pm|
|Vambenepe, William N||Mar 31, 2004 4:35 pm|
|Mark Ellison||Apr 1, 2004 5:26 am|
|Heather Kreger||Apr 1, 2004 7:00 am|
|Subject:||RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded|
|From:||Sedukhin, Igor S (Igor...@ca.com)|
|Date:||Mar 30, 2004 1:30:08 pm|
I just want to define consistently interoperable specs. This has nothing to do with the interop scenario.
If I give you a WSDL that follows WSDM 0.5 and in the binding it states that WSA headers are required and mustUnderstand. There is no way you can talk to such manageabilty endpoint without knowing where to get the EPRs.
In the 1.0 or 0.8 if we decide to explain how and where to get the EPRs for this case, we can remove the statement.
The problem here is that WS-Resource pattern is the "default" in WSRP and so we'd have to constrain to make it work for 0.5. If it was otherwise, i.e. "singleton" was defualt, we'd not have to state anything.
-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor...@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788
-----Original Message----- From: Vambenepe, William N [mailto:vb...@hp.com] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 9:31 PM To: Sedukhin, Igor S; ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsdm] Groups - wd-wsdm-muws-0.5-20040329-with-tracking.zip uploaded
770 Section 6 should say "WS-ResourceProperties MUST be used in a singleton pattern. WSA headers are not expected and not required in message exchanges." We may remove this statement after we have discussed this and addressed properly.
How about we discuss before adding the statement? :-)
I don't understand why we need this statement. I understand that we have chosen to limit ourselves to this case in the interop demo, but why does that mean the spec needs to be limited to this? This is just one of many decisions we have made for the sake of simplicity in the interop and I don't have a problem with it in that context. But what is the rational for restricting the WSRF implied resource pattern in the spec?
Do you have a reason that would not apply to WSRF but would apply to WSDM and would therefore require us to profile WSRF in such a way?
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsdm/members/leave_workgroup.php.