RE: [ws-rx] AnonURI and Offer and WS-Addressing

["David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>]

I'd phrase it slightly differently to differentiate the types of
protocols (akin to differentiating the types of bindings...)

WS-RX is most definitely defining a protocol.  It has a state machine,
etc.  But it is not defining an underlying SOAP protocol binding as you
say.  The WS-A use of protocol is in that binding of SOAP to what SOAP
calls an underlying protocol.  BTW, that's one reason why many of us
SOAP-heads keep saying "don't call it a transport, call it an underlying
protocol".  The use of the term "underlying" is crucial to differentiate
from "overlaying" protocols like RX, Application protocols, etc.  The
WS-RX protocol is a protocol encoded in SOAP headers and body.  No more
or less than any other application protocol like submitPO, getPOStatus,
cancelPO.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 7:35 PM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AnonURI and Offer and WS-Addressing
> 
> > WS-A provides the latitude to define
> > what anonymous means when a given protocol is in the context of an
> > EPR. I suggest that we do so if we need to.
> 
> When WS-Addressing talks about a protocol, they mean the "underlying
SOAP
> protocol binding," such as SOAP over HTTP.
> 
> WS-RX isn't defining a protocol, therefore it cannot change the
meaning of
> anonymous.
> 
>         /r$
> 
> --
> SOA Appliance Group
> IBM Application Integration Middleware