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: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI


I completely agree with you.
 
--umit
 


From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, Feb 20, 2006 4:10 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI


Well, unless AcksTo are going to be required to include wsa:RelatesTo and thus be tagged as responses, in the WSA sense, I don't think the text in the new section 3.5 (you pointed me to) is pertinent to AcksTo.  :-)
-Doug



"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>

02/20/2006 07:07 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI





The limitation is indirect.
 
The resolution of CR15 [1] introduces the term response endpoint. It is debatable that "response endpoint" also applies to acksTo and some folks think that it applies to any response endpoint, I think.
 
HTH,
--umit
 
 
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Monday, Feb 20, 2006 3:59 PM
To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI



Was there some new text proposed to limit it?  If not, from looking at the current WSA spec

I don't believe it does limit it the way Tom is suggesting - so as long as we explain what

anon AcksTo means I'd think we'd be ok to use it - and of course as long as its consistent

with WSA.  :-)

thanks,

-Doug



"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>

02/20/2006 06:58 PM


To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI







IMHO, it does not, but that is my opinion :-)

 

Having said that, there was quite a long discussion on this today at the WS-A concall.
Some members of the wg (myself NOT included) believe that  the definition of anonymous only applies to the single MEP and hence it would not apply to acksTo.

 

--umit

 


From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent:
Monday, Feb 20, 2006 3:35 PM
To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:
Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI



Tom - can you provide a pointer to where in WSA it limits its use as you describe (single MEP exchange)?

thanks

-Doug


Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>

02/20/2006 06:11 PM
Please respond to
tom


To
wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject
[ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: WSRX:AcksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURI









NEW ISSUE: wsrm:acksTo should not use wsa:AnonymousURK

Problem statement:

The wsa:anonymousURI is defiined in WS addressing for use in a single
MEP exchange.

What we really need in wsrm:acksTo is a uri which has the intended
semantics:

"return the wsrm:acknolwedgment soap header in the underlying response
to any soap request which contains a wsrm defined soap header with
this sequenceID."

This is really quite specialized semantics, and should be defined with a
wsrm: specific URI.

Proposal:

Define a wsrm specific URI which has the desired semantics for use in
the wsrm:acksTo URI.

--
----------------------------------------------------
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]