[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
Paul, Taking a layered approach might make sense. I.e., Not define what 'anon' AcksTo means in general and leave the interpretation to the binding/transport of WSRM. But given that WSRM over SOAP/HTTP implementation would be the most dominant case (at least in the beginning), it would behoove us to define exactly what 'anon' AcksTo means for SOAP/HTTP for the sake of interoperability (the example in your email does indeed do that). I would still like to see what the WS-Addr TC has to say about this. -Anish -- Paul Fremantle wrote: > 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]