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
- From: "Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
- To: "Doug Davis" <dug@us.ibm.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:30:41 -0800
I completely agree with you.
--umit
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
|
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]