Matt,
That would fix it.
Do you think it makes sense to make it optional, given that it is a 'may'?
-Anish
--
Matthew Lovett wrote:
>
> Hi Anish,
>
> The EPR added by issue 90 gives a place where protocol messages can be
> sent, but does not restrict the endpoints that can be used for
> application messages. You might be right that we should have been even
> looser - perhaps we should have said something more like:
>
> This REQUIRED element, of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType as specified by
> WS-Addressing [WSAddressing] specifies *an* endpoint reference to which
> WS-RM protocol messages related to the offered Sequence *may* be sent.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Matt
>
>
> Anish Karmarkar <> wrote on 22/03/2006 16:51:31:
>
> > Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > > I'm not sure I agree that this restricts the sequence to a single
> > > endpoint. It simply associates the endpoint with the sequence (in the
> > > same way that there is a CS endpoint associated with the initial
> sequence).
> > >
> >
> > I'm not sure I follow (very likely missing your point) -- specifically I
> > don't know what you mean by '... CS endpoint associated with the
> > *initial sequence*'.
> >
> > The resolution of i090 says this about the specified endpoint:
> >
> > "This REQUIRED element, of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType as specified
> > by WS-Addressing [WSAddressing] specifies the endpoint reference to
> > which WS-RM protocol messages related to the offered Sequence are to be
> > sent."
> >
> > In the non-offered sequence, RMD/RMS are fuzzy concepts not necessarily
> > associated with a single EPR. For example, we talk about sending
> > terminate message to the "RMD" not to a particular EPR. Doesn't this
> > resolution change that for offered sequences? I.e., doesn't this
> > resolution restrict the RMD to the specified EPR (for the offered
> sequence)?
> >
> > Thanks for the response.
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> >
> > > Paul
> > >
> > > Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> > >
> > >> I have a question on the resolution of issue i090 as recorded at
> > >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
> > php/17304/MinutesWSRX-031606.html
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> The resolution restricts the offered sequence to a single EPR. This
> > >> constraints/conflicts with the resolution of an issue (can't recall
> > >> the issue number) that introduced that following text at line 139-140
> > >> (in CD-03):
> > >>
> > >> "Note that this specification makes no restriction on the scope of
> the
> > >> RM Source or RM Destination entities. For example, either may span
> > >> multiple WSDL Ports or endpoints."
> > >>
> > >> The intent of that resolution was to allow RMD and RMS to span
> > >> multiple WSDL endpoints, EPRs etc. Was this conflict discussed during
> > >> the concall? At least in the minutes this is not captured. If it was
> > >> discussed, can someone post the rationale for reverting the previous
> > >> decision? Was there any discussion on making
> > >> /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Endpoint optional?
> > >>
> > >> Thx!
> > >>
> > >> -Anish
> > >> --
> > >
> > >
