RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when used in AcksTo

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

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/anonymous"
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
> > 
> >