RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: anonymous AcksTo

["Lei Jin" <ljin@bea.com>]

Some additional comments inline.

> > > Proposal 1:
> > >
> > > Specifically call out that the AcksTo EPR should not use the
> anonymous
> > > IRI.
> > 
> > I disagree. In fact, I think that there are compelling use 
> cases where
> > the only viable approach to receive acks is on the HTTP response
> message.
> > 
> > >
> > > -- One reason to use an anonymous IRI is so that the 
> acknowledgement
> may
> > > reach sending endpoints that may be sitting behind a NAT or
> firewall.
> > > But we have to deal with the same problem with 
> asynchronous response
> > > messages anyway.
> > 
> > Actually, __we__ don't have to deal with that at all. It is out of
> scope
> > of this
> > TC to deal with such matters. This would be the purview of 
> some other
> WG
> > such as the WS-Addressing WG or the XMLP WG.
> > 
> > >

<lei>: I was talking about "we" in terms of the application developers,
not this TC's members.

> > > Proposal 2:
> > >
> > > Specifically call out that an anonymous IRI in the AcksTo 
> EPR would
> > > indicate acknowledgement message will only be sent back 
> in response
> to
> > > ack request messages where the ack request message should be a
> > > standalone synchronous invoke.
> > 
> > Why? How is this different than flowing acks on the HTTP response
> message
> > for any other message? Frankly, I don't believe that there 
> is an issue
> > here.

<lei>: I would like to clarify that this proposal means that if
anonymous (or not allowed) IRI is used, then acknowledgements will only
be sent in response to an AckRequest message.  Additionally, the
acknowledgements will be sent according to WS-Addressing rules wrt the
AckRequest message.  That is, it will be sent to the ReplyTo endpoint of
the AckRequest message.  So in this case, if you want acknowlegements to
come back synchronously, you can specify the ReplyTo endpoint to be
anonymous.

> 
> This solves the problem, that the MEP isn't transformed from a one-way
> into a two-way.
> 
> Personally, I think the anonymous IRI is actually 
> inappropriate for this
> case.  The WS-Addressing working group is probably (or has?) added
> another special name for "not allowed".  Imagine that a ReplyTo has
> "not-allowed" value which really clearly says it's a one-way mep, and
> then there's an anonymous ackTo.
> 
> I'd suggest a friendly mod to Proposal 2 to say call out a 
> "not allowed"
> IRI in the AcksTo.  It might also need a bit more to say that
> "anonymous" IRI is not allowed when MEP is one-way.
> 

<lei>: This is fine with me.

Lei