David:
Good question. I would recommend that
we continue with the IRP clarification, but build only WS-Addressing embodiments.
sgg
++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++
David Hull <> wrote on 08/10/2004
03:42:25 PM:
> How does this relate to the assertion that the IRP is too tightly
bound up with its
> WS-Addressing embodiment?
>
> Steve Graham wrote:
>
> Folks:
> Please see: http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/05/.
> This is a submission request to the W3C by BEA, IBM, Microsoft, SAP
and Sun to
> submit WS-Addressing to W3C as input to the standardization process.
>
> I would like to recommend that we consider using WS-Addressing as
submitted to the
> W3C in our work in WS-RF and WS-N. Note, our use of WSDL 1.1
(which was a
> submission to W3C, just like WS-Addressing is now) is a precedence
for this sort of
> pre-requisite.
>
> I formally move that we use WS-Addressing as our only means of reference
mechanism.
> In particular, I propose that we avoid abstracting the reference mechanism,
such as
> BPEL has done, in light of this submission of WS-Addressing to W3C.
Note, this
> minimizes the perturbation to the currently specified message exchanges,
and
> reduces migration impediments for implementations that are building
to the 1.1 and
> 1.2 versions of our specifications.
>
> sgg
>
> ++++++++
> Steve Graham
> (919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
> STSM, On Demand Architecture
> Member, IBM Academy of Technology
> <Soli Deo Gloria/>
> ++++++++
