Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related touse of extended anonymous uri

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> IIRC there were some other reasons as well.  One of the ones that kept 
> nagging at me
> is the notion of a soap processor examining the ref-p's of an outgoing 
> message.  While
> they must look at things like the wsa:To URI, a requirement to now 
> check for some
> soap header (even if its well defined) on an outgoing message can be 
> quite a change
> for some processors. 
Can you explain which bit of the processing chain you are thinking of?

> I'm really disappointed with the WSA WG because while we (rx) may or 
> may not have
> made the right choice by defining a new URI, that really isn't the 
> issue. Other specs
> _can_ define their own special (non-addressable) URI and, IMO, WSA 
> should be
> extensible/composable enough to allow for them.  And as such, they 
> (wsa) should
> address this issue in the general sense and not try to deflect it onto 
> RM.  We can
> obviously revisit our decision, but even if we do decide on a 
> different answer (like
> ref-p's) the WSA issue would still exist.
As chair of this TC I'm afraid I don't think that is our (RX's) concern. 
I'm happy for you to lobby the WSA WG as you wish, but the primary issue 
we have to deal with is that they have publicly commented on our spec 
and we have to take that into account. If  the WSA issue gets punted 
into a later revision of WSA then that's their problem :-)

Paul