Re: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

I would image the same would apply for extensibility points (?).

-Anish
--

Mark Little wrote:
> Doug, I just want to clarify the lack of reference to wsa:Metadata. It's 
> much harder to quantify the relevance of the metadata to the EPR 
> comparison because it can change (become out-of-date, for example), 
> whilst the rest of the endpoint is still valid. So I'm not advocating 
> adding that to the equality definition you've got; I'd just like to make 
> sure its absence is for the same reasons I'm thinking.
> 
> Mark.
> 
> 
> Doug Davis wrote:
>  >
>  > Based on some additional feedback I'd like to modify the proposal 
> slightly:
>  >
>  > Proposal:
>  >
>  > Add after the first paragraph in section 3:
>  >
>  > Some RM header blocks may be added (or 'piggy-backed') to messages 
> that happen to be targeted to the same endpoint to which those headers 
> are to be sent, thus saving the overhead of an additional message 
> exchange.  For the purpose of determining whether these soap header 
> blocks may be added to a message, two Endpoint References are considered 
> to be equal if the following are true:
>  > - The [address] properties of two endpoint references are equal when 
> compared according to Section 6 of [RFC 2396]
>  > - They contain the same number of reference parameters
>  > - For each reference parameter in one endpoint reference there exists 
> an equivalent reference parameter in the other.  One [reference 
> parameter] is equivalent to another [reference parameter] if their byte 
> streams per Exclusive XML canonicalization (with an empty "inclusives" 
> list) are equal.  Note that this may result in incorrect answers if 
> there are qnames in attribute or element content.
>  >
>  > (the 3rd bullet changed)
>  >
>  > Marc - when you update the issue list can you please update the proposal?
>  >
>  > thanks
>  > -Doug
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>  >
>  > 05/04/2006 12:18 AM
>  >      
>  > To
>  >       ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > cc
>  >      
>  > Subject
>  >       [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE] When to piggy-back RM headers
>  >
>  >
>  >      
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Description:
>  > It is not clear when an implementation is allowed to piggy-back RM 
> headers (acks, ackReq) in a message.  I suspect that most 
> implementations will simply compare the wsa:Address of the EPRs - 
> however, since ref-p's are an integral part of EPRs they should really 
> be included in the comparison.
>  >
>  > The latest WSA spec says:
>  >
>  > 2.3 Endpoint Reference Comparison
>  > This specification provides no concept of endpoint identity and 
> therefore does not provide any mechanism to determine equality or 
> inequality of EPRs and does not specify the consequences of their 
> equality or inequality. However, note that it is possible for other 
> specifications to provide a comparison function that is applicable 
> within a limited scope.
>  >
>  > This proposal does just that - it proposes a comparison function for 
> use just by RM for a very specific purpose.
>  >
>  > Target: core
>  >
>  > Type: design
>  >
>  > Proposal:
>  >
>  > Add after the first paragraph in section 3:
>  >
>  > Some RM header blocks may be added (or 'piggy-backed') to messages 
> that happen to be targeted to the same endpoint to which those headers 
> are to be sent, thus saving the overhead of an additional message 
> exchange.  For the purpose of determining whether these soap header 
> blocks may be added to a message, two Endpoint References are considered 
> to be equal if the following are true:
>  > - The [address] properties of two endpoint references are equal when 
> compared according to Section 6 of [RFC 2396]
>  > - They contain the same number of reference parameters
>  > - For each reference parameter in one endpoint reference there exists 
> an equivalent reference parameter in the other.  One [reference 
> parameter] is equivalent to another [reference parameter] if their byte 
> streams per Exclusive XML cononicalization are equal.
>  >
>  > (some should recognize this from the submitted WSA spec)
>  >
>  > thanks
>  > -Doug
>