Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use ofextended anonymous uri

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

IIRC there were some other reasons as
well.  One of the ones that kept nagging at me
is the notion of a soap processor examining
the ref-p's of an outgoing message.  While
they must look at things like the wsa:To
URI, a requirement to now check for some
soap header (even if its well defined)
on an outgoing message can be quite a change
for some processors.  One of the
things we tried to do was to keep the existing soap/wsa
processing as unchanged as possible.
 So, at some point a soap node would need to
detect that the wsa:To is 'special'
- whether its anon, none or the RM anon URI there
should already be logic to do this type
of checking.  Checking for a header is probably
something new though.

I'm really disappointed with the WSA
WG because while we (rx) may or may not have
made the right choice by defining a
new URI, that really isn't the issue. Other specs
_can_ define their own special (non-addressable)
URI and, IMO, WSA should be
extensible/composable enough to allow
for them.  And as such, they (wsa) should
address this issue in the general sense
and not try to deflect it onto RM.  We can 
obviously revisit our decision, but
even if we do decide on a different answer (like
ref-p's) the WSA issue would still exist.

-Doug

Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

09/27/2006 04:28 AM

To	Gilbert Pilz <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
cc	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri

Aha I remember now! I knew there was some discussion.
Maybe I'm getting 
senile.

So the real issue in using anon+refparam is that a polling reference 
parameter would be minted by the client but the server would need to 
look at it (especially this one) in order to compare the EPR of the 
incoming request with the EPR of a stored message. So the real question
is what "opaque" means.

I agree that the WS-A WG might be a little more helpful. What it boils
down to is that for this half of polling model we need a way of ensuring
that a client can mint a clearly unique and comparable anonymous EPR.
We want the protocol to define a scheme for those EPRs with a place for
a unique ID, and we have to be able to compare these EPRs and 
disambiguate them at the server side. I think the issue around opacity
is that we wish to imbue a specific reference parameter with special 
weight when it comes to EPR comparison.

I personally think that is a fair enough requirement onto WSA and maybe
we should take their advice on what the best approach is. If they are 
saying that a reference parameter is the right way to do that, and that
we aren't breaking the opacity of the refparam by using it for 
comparison purposes, then maybe we should accept their judgement and use
that approach.

Paul

Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> The origins of this go back to a struggle in WS-Addressing between
> "reference parameters" and "reference properties".
Reference parameters
> are supposed to be opaque to everyone except the minter of the EPR.
The
> proto-usecase is a service consumer disambiguating callback operations
> by placing unique parameters in its ReplyTo EPRs. Using reference
> parameters to communicate identity information from the service consumer
> to the service provider (which is what this idea entails) basically
> turns them into "reference properties". The problem with
reference
> properties is that there is *no* such thing (the WS-Addressing WG
said
> so).
>
> It's ironic that the WS-Addressing WG first said "there is no
such thing
> as reference properties" then turns around and says "maybe
you should
> solve this problem using reference properties".
>
> - gp
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 9:32 AM
>> To: Doug Davis
>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR issue 1 - WS-Addressing comment on 
>> ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri
>>
>> Doug
>>
>>     
>>> - rather than looking at the bigger issue of how a new URI
>>>       
>> defined by 
>>     
>>> some specification can compose with WSA's wsaw:Anonymous 
>>>       
>> URI, the WSA 
>>     
>>> WG kept wanting to reexamine whether or not RM's solution
was the 
>>> right choice.  For example, could WSA's anon+ref-p's
be 
>>>       
>> used instead.
>> Didn't we discuss this option (anon+refps)? Can you remind me
>> why we didn't go for it?
>>
>> Paul
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>