[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
I agree with Doug, AFAICT, there is nothing in the specs that says that. -Anish -- Doug Davis wrote: > > 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 > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]