[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when used in AcksTo
I agree with Doug, AFAICT, there is nothing in the specs that says that.
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> It would be nice if it said that - but I may have missed it.
> -Doug
>
>
> Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote on 09/10/2005 07:31:29 PM:
>
> > Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> >
> > > As to the question of why one would use anonymous IRI for wsa:To:
> > > WS-Addressing spec actually requires you to do so in certain cases.
> > > Specifically, in the case of the req-res scenario where the
> > > wsa:ReplyTo of the request message is an 'anon' IRI the value of
> > > wsa:To of the response message must be 'anon' IRI. See [1]. 'anon' IRI
> > > is also to default for wsa:To, so if there is no value specified then
> > > it is 'anon' IRI.
> > >
> > > The use of 'anon' IRI in wsa:To message makes sense on the response
> > > message in case of SOAP/HTTP. I don't know what it would mean (or why
> > > it would be used) in other cases.
> >
> > The reason for the default was simplification when the To address is the
> > same as the http "address". That has always been my interpretation.
> >
> > Thus anonymous, when mapped to http request, implies whatever URI is
> > being used for that http request.
> >
> > Tom Rutt
> >
> > >
> > > Doug: I think this (what does 'anon' URI mean for wsa:To) is a good
> > > catch from the perspective of WS-Addressing. It would be fruitful to
> > > provide this as a CR comment.
> > >
> > > But the wsa:To issue is a more general issue whereas AcksTo is a
> > > specific issue for WSRM.
> > >
> > > In resolving LC20 [2] WS-Addressing made a specific decision to not
> > > define exactly what 'anon' IRI means in the Core spec and left it to
> > > the binding specs. SOAP binding does define it for ReplyTo and
> > > FaultTo, but not for others (I think this is an oversight, but don't
> > > recall the full discussion). IMHO, it would be useful to have
> > > WS-Addressing SOAP binding define (or provide guidance on) what 'anon'
> > > IRI means for SOAP/HTTP in all cases and not just ReplyTo and FaultTo.
> > > The EndpontReferenceType is meant to be reused by other specs (WSRM
> > > has AcksTo, WS-Eventing has wse:NotifyTo, WS-Notification has
> > > wsnt:SubscriptionReference, wsnt:ProducerReference etc) and having the
> > > meaning of 'anon' IRI (which is very useful for SOAP/HTTP) for all
> > > EndpointReferenceTypes (in the context of SOAP/HTTP) would serve a
> > > very useful purpose.
> > >
> > > But I haven't thought it through, perhaps there are reasons why
> > > defining the 'anon' IRI for SOAP/HTTP binding in every case does not
> > > make sense -- in which case, we should define in WSRM spec what we
> > > need (for AcksTo EPR).
> > >
> > > Comments?
> > >
> > > -Anish
> > > --
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/#formreplymsg
> > > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc20
> > >
> > > Doug Davis wrote:
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Personally, I'm not sure what an anonymous wsa:To means either :-)
> > >> but its allowed, and its actually the default value if wsa:To is not
> > >> specified.
> > >> The only similarity I was trying to make was that if WSA doesn't need
> > >> to say what an anonymous wsa:To means then we might not need to say
> > >> what an anonymous AcksTo
> > >> means - it could just be obvious. But its 8pm on Friday and I might
> > >> not be thinking straight since I'm also choosing to actually continue
> > >> to work instead of doing something else....sigh
> > >> thanks,
> > >> -Doug
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> wrote on 09/09/2005
> > >> 07:25:20 PM:
> > >>
> > >> > I fail to understand the similarity or more simply why one would
> > >> use anonymous IRI
> > >> > for "To". Where would you send the initial message? /dev/null ;-)
> > >> > > AcksTo EPR using anon IRI is different, it is piggybacking on
> > >> the existing channel
> > >> > provided by the binding, similar to ReplyTo and Fault which
> > >> corresponds to a kind
> > >> > of "response". Acknowledgement is a kind of response.
> > >> > > --umit
> > >> > >
> > >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 3:47 PM
> > >> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when
> > >> used in AcksTo
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > Right - it talks about ReplyTo and FaultTo but not "To". So, we
> > >> can either assume
> > >> > that it is implicitly talking about "To" which means wecan make
> > >> the same
> > >> > assumption for AcksTo. Or we can assume that silence on "To"
> > >> implies something
> > >> > else - like "its obvious". dunno. Whatever that assumption is, we
> > >> can probably
> > >> > carry it over to the AcksTo EPR :-)
> > >> > thanks,
> > >> > -Doug
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
> > >> > 09/09/2005 06:24 PM
> > >> >
> > >> > To
> > >> >
> > >> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >> >
> > >> > cc
> > >> >
> > >> > Subject
> > >> >
> > >> > RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when used in
> AcksTo
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Hmm. I am wondering whether we are looking at different versions
> > >> of the soap
> > >> > binding spec. The current editor's copy [1] has the following
> > >> statement in Section
> > >> > 3.5 (Anish was suggesting adding basically a similar language to
> > >> our spec in this thread).
> > >> > > {
> > >> > When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"; is specified
> > >> as the address
> > >> > of the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the underlying SOAP protocol
> > >> binding provides a
> > >> > channel to the specified endpoint. Any underlying protocol binding
> > >> supporting the
> > >> > SOAP request-response message exchange pattern provides such a
> > >> channel. For
> > >> > instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts]
> > >> puts the reply
> > >> > message in the HTTP response.
> > >> > }
> > >> > > > --umit
> > >> > > [1]
> > >>
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-soap.html?
> > >>
> > >> > content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soaphttp
> > >> >
> > >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 1:57 PM
> > >> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when
> > >> used in AcksTo
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > I saw no mention of what an anonymous wsa:To means in the soap
> > >> binding spec - but
> > >> > perhaps I missed it. If not, then they're silent on it.
> > >> > thanks,
> > >> > -Doug
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
> > >> > 09/09/2005 04:43 PM
> > >> >
> > >> > To
> > >> >
> > >> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> > >> >
> > >> > cc
> > >> >
> > >> > Subject
> > >> >
> > >> > RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when used in
> AcksTo
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Doug,
> > >> > > I think it is incorrect to characterize that WS-Addressing is
> > >> silent. It just
> > >> > defers the definition to the binding where it belongs to the
> > >> extent of how the
> > >> > definition is used for WS-Addressing purposes only.
> > >> > > I would be very much in favor of (a) or (b) for our own spec.
> > >> If (b) can not be
> > >> > coordinated with WS-Addressing wg (we need to do that rather fast
> > >> due to the
> > >> > timelines of WS-Addressing) , we should definitely explore (a).
> > >> > > Cheers,
> > >> > > --umit
> > >> > >
> > >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> > >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 11:42 AM
> > >> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > >> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when
> > >> used in AcksTo
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Is WS-Addressing's silence on what it means to use the anonymous
> > >> IRI in the wsa:To
> > >> > header mean that it should be obvious to the reader? If so, then
> > >> perhaps we can
> > >> > take the same approach to its use in other places that
> > >> WS-Addressing is silent as
> > >> > well - for example, AcksTo - and say nothing and assume its
> > >> obvious to the reader.
> > >> > thanks
> > >> > -Doug
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote on 09/09/2005
> > >> 02:20:12 AM:
> > >> >
> > >> > > As discussed on the call today, I'm raising an issue about the
> > >> meaning
> > >> > > of 'anon' URI when used in AcksTo URI.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Title:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What does 'anon' URI mean when used in AcksTo EPR?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Description:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > WS-Addressing Core [1], section 2.1 says the following about
> > >> 'anon':
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "Some endpoints cannot be located with a meaningful IRI; this
> > >> URI is
> > >> > > used to allow such endpoints to send and receive messages. The
> > >> precise
> > >> > > meaning of this URI is defined by the binding of Addressing to a
> > >> > > specific protocol."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > WS-Addressing SOAP binding [2] defines what the 'anon' address
> > >> means
> > >> > > when used with ReplyTo and FaultTo in SOAP and SOAP/HTTP
> > >> binding. It
> > >> > > does not say anything about what it means when used in other
> > >> headers
> > >> > > such as AcksTo.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Justification:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > WSRM defines AcksTo element of type EndpointReferenceType and
> > >> allows
> > >> > > 'anon' URI for the address. But the meaning of such an anon
> > >> address is
> > >> > > not defined anywhere.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Target:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > core, soap
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Type:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > design
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Proposal:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > This can be resolved by:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > a) Adding a stmt similar to WS-Addressing SOAP binding.
> > >> Something like:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > "When "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous"; is
> > >> specified as
> > >> > > the address of the wsrm:AcksTo EPR, the underlying SOAP protocol
> > >> binding
> > >> > > provides a channel to the specified endpoint. Any underlying
> > >> protocol
> > >> > > binding supporting the SOAP request-response message exchange
> > >> pattern
> > >> > > provides such a channel. For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP
> > >> binding[SOAP
> > >> > > 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message in the HTTP
> response."
> > >> > >
> > >> > > OR
> > >> > >
> > >> > > b) we could ask the WS-Addressing WG to fix their SOAP binding to
> > >> > > include not just ReplyTo and FaultTo EPRs but any EPR when used
> > >> in the
> > >> > > context of SOAP/HTTP binding.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > I prefer that we do (b). If they refuse, we can do (a)
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Related issues:
> > >> > > i012
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; [email protected]
> > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
> >
> >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]