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



+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]