Re: [ws-tx] Issue 30 - One-way message replies

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Mark,

Taking off from a comment in the last paragraph of my written 
contribution on this area during the F2F

    
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200603/msg00088.html

I think we need to address, in resolving this issue, the question of the 
[reply endpoint] value being defaulted to anonymous.

An absent [reply endpoint] property in the XML infoset representation 
becomes a receiver-inferred value of "anonymous" (actually, the URI that 
means anon).

It seems preferable that we explicitly specify the value of "none" 
(again, a URI in truth).

This is explicit, intuitively what one would expect for a one-way in 
terms of HTTP handling, and avoids any ambiguity/under-specification if 
a different representation is used at some future point.

The current wording banning use of anonymous reply-to addresses would 
then be replaced.

I think we also need to ban use of message ids, and ban use of fault-to, 
i.e. make it clear (by omission or by explicit statement) that none of 
these aspects of the reply-processing rules and apparatus are being put 
to use. ("Ban" in this context could mean "make it clear that these 
properties, if present, will be ignored".)

I think use of wsa:From tends to detract from the clarity obtained by 
defining an extension property for our special use.

Yours,

Alastair


Mark Little wrote:
> Line 472 and 480.
>
> Mark.
>
>
> Ram Jeyaraman wrote:
>>
>> Mark,
>>
>>  
>>
>> Could you please provide the PDF line numbers in the referred 
>> document that are relevant to this issue. Thanks.
>>
>>  
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *From:* Ram Jeyaraman [mailto:Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com]
>> *Sent:* Friday, March 17, 2006 2:48 PM
>> *To:* ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> *Subject:* [ws-tx] Issue 30 - One-way message replies
>>
>>  
>>
>> This is identified as WS-TX issue 30.
>>
>>  
>>
>> Please ensure follow-ups have a subject line starting "Issue 30 -" 
>> (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc.)
>>
>>  
>>
>> ===================================
>>
>>  
>>
>> Issue name: One-way message replies
>>
>>  
>>
>> Issue type: spec
>>
>>  
>>
>> Owner: Mark Little (mark.little@jboss.com)
>>
>> Reference documents:
>>
>> WS-AT specification:
>> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17044/http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17129/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-04.pdf 
>> <http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17044/http:/www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/download.php/17129/wstx-wsat-1.1-spec-wd-04.pdf> 
>>
>>
>> Description:
>>
>> Currently we use wsa:ReplyTo for one-way messages in a way which 
>> although legal in terms of the latest CR draft of WS-Addressing, has 
>> led to confusion on a number of occasions. As an example, one use of 
>> wsa:ReplyTo is on Prepare->Prepared, where Prepare has a wsa:ReplyTo 
>> but the Prepared message is a separate (not response) message, 
>> because it could be sent autonomously and not actually in response to 
>> Prepare. The issue is that as far as WS-Addressing is concerned, 
>> wsa:ReplyTo should really only be used in the case of the 
>> request-response MEP, which is clearly not the case here.
>>
>> Proposed Resolution:
>>
>> The rules for where and when wsa:ReplyTo should be included and used 
>> within WS-AT are well defined, and particularly in respect to the 
>> interoperability scenarios. I propose that we replace wsa:ReplyTo 
>> with something specific to WS-TX (perhaps wsc:ReplyTo, wsc:OnewayTo, 
>> or somesuch).
>>
>> Addendum:
>>
>> Max suggested at the Raleigh f2f another potential resolution: that 
>> we use wsa:From.
>>
>