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

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

It would be nice if it said that - but
I may have missed it.
-Doug


Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com> wrote on 09/10/2005
07:31:29 PM:

> 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.
> 
> The reason for the default was simplification when the To address
is the 
> same as the http "address".  That has always been my
interpretation.
> 
> Thus anonymous, when mapped to http request, implies whatever URI
is 
> being used for that http request.
> 
> Tom Rutt
> 
> >
> > 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
> >>  > >
> >>  > >
> >
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt   email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732
774 5133
> 
>