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] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean when used in AcksTo


Anish

There is a clear layering issue here. The SOAP core spec does not define 
the meaning of the anon URI because it is clearly meant to mean that the 
delivery of the message is up to the transport. So in the case of 
wsa:To, it means that by default of the transport, there is one and only 
one place to deliver that message - and for responses, that means using 
the HTTP response. In JMS, it most logically would mean the ReplyTo 
destination.

Then - because SOAP has a binding, they define what that means when 
bound. We as a TC need to figure out if we want to delve into bindings, 
or remain at a higher level above SOAP only. So we could either define 
the binding, or we could specify it in terms of SOAP:

For example, we could say that if the acksTo URI is anonymous, then the 
ack header should only be attached to a reply, and the reply should be 
in response to a message with a anon wsa:ReplyTo. And then it is up to 
the SOAP binding to define the binding.

Paul

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

> As to the question of why one would use anonymous IRI for wsa:To:
> WS-Addressing spec actually requires you to do so in certain cases. 
> Specifically, in the case of the req-res scenario where the 
> wsa:ReplyTo of the request message is an 'anon' IRI the value of 
> wsa:To of the response message must be 'anon' IRI. See [1]. 'anon' IRI 
> is also to default for wsa:To, so if there is no value specified then 
> it is 'anon' IRI.
>
> The use of 'anon' IRI in wsa:To message makes sense on the response 
> message in case of SOAP/HTTP. I don't know what it would mean (or why 
> it would be used) in other cases.
>
> Doug: I think this (what does 'anon' URI mean for wsa:To) is a good 
> catch from the perspective of WS-Addressing. It would be fruitful to 
> provide this as a CR comment.
>
> But the wsa:To issue is a more general issue whereas AcksTo is a 
> specific issue for WSRM.
>
> In resolving LC20 [2] WS-Addressing made a specific decision to not 
> define exactly what 'anon' IRI means in the Core spec and left it to 
> the binding specs. SOAP binding does define it for ReplyTo and 
> FaultTo, but not for others (I think this is an oversight, but don't 
> recall the full discussion). IMHO, it would be useful to have 
> WS-Addressing SOAP binding define (or provide guidance on) what 'anon' 
> IRI means for SOAP/HTTP in all cases and not just ReplyTo and FaultTo. 
> The EndpontReferenceType is meant to be reused by other specs (WSRM 
> has AcksTo, WS-Eventing has wse:NotifyTo, WS-Notification has 
> wsnt:SubscriptionReference, wsnt:ProducerReference etc) and having the 
> meaning of 'anon' IRI (which is very useful for SOAP/HTTP) for all 
> EndpointReferenceTypes (in the context of SOAP/HTTP) would serve a 
> very useful purpose.
>
> But I haven't thought it through, perhaps there are reasons why 
> defining the 'anon' IRI for SOAP/HTTP binding in every case does not 
> make sense -- in which case, we should define in WSRM spec what we 
> need (for AcksTo EPR).
>
> Comments?
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/#formreplymsg
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc20
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
>
>>
>> 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
>>  > >
>>  > >
>




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