[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
+1 abbie > -----Original Message----- > From: Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jmarsh@microsoft.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2005 10:31 AM > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Anish Karmarkar; Doug Davis > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean > when used in AcksTo > > > +1 to booting this back to the WS-A WG. I don't believe the intention > was to leave anonymous undefined for HTTP except in the > specific cases of ReplyTo and FaultTo. Thus it appears to be > an oversight, or at least a lack of clarity, by the WS-A WG > rather than a WS-RM issue. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 11:59 AM > > To: Anish Karmarkar; Doug Davis > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean > when used in > > AcksTo > > > > Yes, you are right. It does not explicitly say that. > However, I have > > the same interpretation/assumption that Tom does. > > > > --umit > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > > > Sent: Sunday, Sep 11, 2005 9:59 PM > > > To: Doug Davis > > > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > 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/anonymou> s" > > 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; trutt@us.fujitsu.com > > > > > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]