OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[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


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
>
>



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]