6425 2009-01-14 17:45:15 +0000 Eventing-Clarify How to Address Event Source 2009-04-21 21:25:54 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS-Resource Access Eventing FPWD SGI Windows 2000 CLOSED REMIND hasProposal P2 normal --- 6430 1 lli5 lli5 bob dug lli5 public-ws-resource-access-notifications oldest_to_newest 23082 0 lli5 2009-01-14 17:45:15 +0000 Current WS-Eventing defines the concept of Event Source, but does not specify how to address it in the Subscribe message. The sample Subscribe messages suggest that WS-Addressing [destination] EPR is used to address the Event Source, but this mechanism is not mandated. It is also not clear how to address individual event sources, such as a port type or dynamic event sources, in the Subscribe request. We propose to mandate using WS-Addressing [destination] EPR to address any event sources. For example, a port type event source is addressed in SOAP as: <s12:Header> <wsa:To>http://www.example.org/oceanwatch/EventSource</wsa:To> <wsdl:portType wsa:IsReferenceParameter='true' name='eventPortType' /> </s12:Header> A CSTA monitor is addressed as: <s12:Header> <wsa:To>http://www.example.org/csta/CallControl</wsa:To> <csta:MonitorCrossRefID wsa:IsReferenceParameter='true'> 12345 </csta:MonitorCrossRefID> </s12:Header> 23127 1 bob 2009-01-15 22:19:25 +0000 2009-01-15: action to Li assigned for a before/after text 23581 2 bob 2009-02-09 01:24:15 +0000 Proposal from http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/0024.html see http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/att-0024/wse_6425_2.pdf 23875 3 bob 2009-02-23 15:34:47 +0000 Discussion points in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Feb/att-0112/00-part 24135 4 bob 2009-03-10 18:33:30 +0000 Resolved 2009-03-10 with "All messages defined by this specification are sent to a Web service that is addressable by an EPR [WS-Addressing 1.0 Core]" to be added at an appropriate place, this change to be extended to all of the specs. 24189 5 dug 2009-03-12 01:26:08 +0000 in specs 24200 6 bob 2009-03-12 13:23:35 +0000 on 2009-03-12 The editor asked if there was an inadvertent lack of normative language It as suggested to change "are sent" to "MUST be sent" members agreed