Re: [ws-rx] Revised proposal for i053

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Marc,

Given that WS-Addr supports IRIs and the sentiment expressed (during one 
of the earlier calls) that moving stacks to IRIs is 'A Good Thing', I'm 
curious about the reason behind saying that the Sequence ID should be 
URI and not changed to IRIs (other than 'current implementations have to 
change' -- which is a perma-argument against almost any and every change 
to the spec).

Thanks.

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> After reviewing our previous proposal for i053 we have come to the 
> conclusion that the only URI references that need to be updated to IRI 
> are those that are inherited from WS-Addressing. There are three of 
> these changes from URI to IRI are all around WS-A Action, two are in the 
> same paragraph saying that unless there is a value (a IRI) for Action 
> derived from WS-A rules it is a value defined in WS-RM (a URI). The 
> other is about using the default value for Fault (a IRI) from WS-A in 
> Action.
> 
>  
> 
> It is not necessary to change the sequence identifier to IRI as we 
> previously proposed. Therefore we propose the following changes to 
> satisfy i053, 
> http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i053.
> 
>  
> 
> These are the references to URI that should and should not be updated to 
> IRI in WS-RM [1]:
> 
> 111: keep URI
> 
> 122: IRI
> 
> 123: IRI
> 
> 124: keep URI
> 
> 291: keep URI
> 
> 321: keep URI
> 
> 357: keep URI
> 
> 451: keep URI
> 
> 511: keep URI
> 
> 556: keep URI
> 
> 613: keep URI
> 
> 656: keep URI
> 
> 695: IRI
> 
>  
> 
> Plus of course add the reference to the IRI spec.
> 
> 1 wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf  
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15001/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
> 
>  
>