RE: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not defined

["Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>]

Paul,
Maybe I am just confused.
It seems to me like you are using wsa:anon to be an alias for a valid
mailto: scheme uri.

Are you talking about the rfc2822 replyTo or the rfc2821 (smtp) reverse
path?

Is a non addressable email client one that has neither a FQDN (rfc2881
4.1.1.1) nor an address literal (rfc2821 4.1.3)?

Or are you mapping wsa:anon to a real address at the originating side
and placing that string in the rfc2822 replyTo field?
Or are you assuming that the rfc2821 reverse path will always work to
send a message to the originating endpoint when the rfc2822 replyTo is
set to wsa:anon (or missing for that matter)? 

Are you assuming that a "wsa:anon" client would poll for responses via
smtp?
Unless rfc821's TURN command was used, the transmission direction would
not reverse.  I have assumed rfc2821 where TURN has been deprecated.
Why would not the poll be something like imap or pop?

Thanks
-bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 8:25 AM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Cc: Richard Salz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
defined

Yes exactly. From my perspective a backchannel is any way I can get a 
SOAP response back to the originator when the wsa:replyTo is anonymous.
Obviously this relies on the transport.

In fact my definition is very simple. If you can get a response back to 
an anon client, then there is a backchannel.

In the SMTP case the SMTP Reply-To header allows that.

Paul

Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
> What is it?
> How does rfc2821 return a mime body on the same connection?
> Are you thinking that a correlated response using the rfc2822
message-ID
> sent to the replyTo address is a backchannel?
> Thanks
> -bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:49 AM
> To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
> Cc: Richard Salz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
> defined
>
> Bob
>
> That is exactly why I don't agree with your definition.
> I believe that SMTP has a backchannel.
>
> Paul
>
> Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
>   
>> No, in the case of an rfc2822 message carried over an rfc2821
>>     
> transport
>   
>> there is no backchannel (as defined in the chris/bob joint
definition)
>> since rfc2821 deprecated the rfc281 TURN command.
>> In rfc2821 there is no way that a response may be transmitted over
the
>> same connection as the request.
>> -bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:20 PM
>> To: Paul Fremantle
>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
>> defined
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> I still don't agree that this is right. I think there may be cases
>>>     
>>>       
>> where 
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> there is a new transport level connection. The main point is that
the
>>>       
>
>   
>>> response channel is transport-defined not WS-A defined.
>>>     
>>>       
>> Hm.  For a SOAP-over-SMTP binding, would you expect the backchannel
to
>> be 
>> a response message, the equivalent of the recipient invoking the
>>     
> 'reply'
>   
>> function on its mail user-agent?  (I think the question is
>>     
> interesting; 
>   
>> either there is no back-channel or there is only the back-channel.)
I
>>     
>
>   
>> think it's up to the particular transport binding to say, tho.
>>
>>         /r$
>>
>> --
>> STSM
>> Senior Security Architect
>> DataPower SOA Appliances
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com