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] issue 115: clarifying question



So, in this case the mU has different semantics as to whether it is used in the soap:Header vs a soap:Body?

The spec currently says that for "piggy-backed" RM elements, that a fault in processing should be ignored, but for
others? Do we ignore the extension mU fault or proceed to process the rest of the message, just without RM?

Do we actually have any specific use cases that we can use to vet this new wsrm:mU against besides the obvious one
of CS/STR?

As I have previously noted, the spec already has an extensibility strategy; SHOULD ignore. Why are we proposing
to change that?

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295



"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>

04/25/2006 06:27 PM

To
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
cc
"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, "Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>, "wsrx" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question





 
There may other valid SOAP headers that are entirely unrelated to RM (or just unrelated to the specific instance of the problematic RM Sequence) which I believe should rightfully see the day light.
 
In the case of CS/STR mU that can not be respected, I do expect that a fault be raised but I don't see why the other valid parts of the message be discarded.
 
-- Sanjay


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 15:19 PM
To:
Patil, Sanjay
Cc:
Gilbert Pilz; Paul Fremantle; wsrx
Subject:
RE: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question



What, then, would you have the processor do? Is it to take a case-by-case assessment?


In the case of the CS/STR, I certainly DO expect that the entire message fault in this manner.


Cheers,


Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295


"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> wrote on 04/25/2006 05:51:48 PM:

>  

> Doesn't SOAP mU processing model require that the entire message be
> abandoned and a fault raised if the mU semantic can not be respected
> by the receiver. I am not sure we have enough reasons to justify
> triggering such a behavior for RM mU scenarios!

>  

> -- Sanjay

>
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Christopher B Ferris; wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question


> Gil
>
> Why is creating a new SOAP header a problem?
>
> Paul
>
> Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> So you are saying that the definition of qname of the header is the
> reference to the extension? This means that, for every extension for
> which I want mU semantics, I need to define a unique header? Why is
> this preferable to defining a single new attribute?

>  

> What if I extend something like the SequenceAcknowledgement header?
> Suppose an RMD is returning a message into which it inserts two
> separate SequenceAcknowledgement's, one of which has a
> mustUnderstand extension and the other which does not. It seems
> that, using your mechanism, an RMS that did not understand the
> extension would not be able to process either of the acknowledgments
> despite the fact that one of them is not extended in any way. What
> if there were three SequenceAcknowledgement headers in the same
> message; one that carries a mustUnderstand extension, another that
> carries a mayIgnore extension, and a third that isn't extended at all?

>  

> - gp

>
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 24, 2006 6:07 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying question


>
> Gil,
>
> Actually, I had something more like this in mind:
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604"
> xmlns:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-
> wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"
> xmlns:foo="http://example.org/foo"
> xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> <S:Header>
>  <foo:SecureRM S:mustUnderstand="1"/>
>  <wsa:MessageID>
>   http://Business456.com/guid/0baaf88d-483b-4ecf-a6d8-a7c2eb546817
>  </wsa:MessageID>
>  <wsa:To>http://example.com/serviceB/123</wsa:To>
>    <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/CreateSequence
> </wsa:Action>
>  <wsa:ReplyTo>
>   <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>  </wsa:ReplyTo>
> </S:Header>
> <S:Body>
>  <wsrm:CreateSequence>
>    <wsrm:AcksTo>
>      <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>    </wsrm:AcksTo>
>    <wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>      ...
>    </wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>  </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> </S:Body>
> </S:Envelope>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
>
> "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com> wrote on 04/24/2006 05:41:23 PM:
>
> > During the conference call of 4/20/2006 Chris asserted that you can
> > use a SOAP header with a mustUnderstand attribute to flag the fact
> > that some element in either another header or in the message body is
> > an extension that must be understood by the receiver. I'm not sure I
> > understood exactly what Chris thought this should look like. For
> > example, imagine the following CreateSequence message. The extension
> > elements have been marked in bold. What is supposed to go in the
> > <wsrm:Extension> header?
> >
> > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604"
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> >  <S:Header>
> >   <wsrm:Extension S:mustUnderstand="1">
> >     ????
> >   </wsrm:Extension>
> >   <wsa:MessageID>
> >    http://Business456.com/guid/0baaf88d-483b-4ecf-a6d8-a7c2eb546817
> >   </wsa:MessageID>
> >   <wsa:To>http://example.com/serviceB/123</wsa:To>
> >     <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/CreateSequence
> > </wsa:Action>
> >   <wsa:ReplyTo>
> >    <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
> >   </wsa:ReplyTo>
> >  </S:Header>
> >  <S:Body>
> >   <wsrm:CreateSequence>
> >     <wsrm:AcksTo>
> >       <wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
> >     </wsrm:AcksTo>
> >     <wsrm:SecurityComposition>
> >       <wsrm:Identifier>
> >         http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-
> > rx/wsrmsp/200604/profile/http_auth/samenode
> >       </wsrm:Identifier>
> >     </wsrm:SecurityComposition>
> >   </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> >  </S:Body>
> > </S:Envelope>
> >
> > I'm sure that most of us could all come up with a reasonable design
> > to do what you suggest, but for the purposes of further discussion
> > I'd like to know what design Chris had in mind?
> >
> > - gp
>
> --
>
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
> paul@wso2.com
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com



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