Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not defined

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Yes exactly. From my perspective a backchannel is any way I can get a 
SOAP response back to the originator when the wsa:replyTo is anonymous.
Obviously this relies on the transport.

In fact my definition is very simple. If you can get a response back to 
an anon client, then there is a backchannel.

In the SMTP case the SMTP Reply-To header allows that.

Paul

Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
> What is it?
> How does rfc2821 return a mime body on the same connection?
> Are you thinking that a correlated response using the rfc2822 message-ID
> sent to the replyTo address is a backchannel?
> Thanks
> -bob
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 7:49 AM
> To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
> Cc: Richard Salz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
> defined
>
> Bob
>
> That is exactly why I don't agree with your definition.
> I believe that SMTP has a backchannel.
>
> Paul
>
> Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
>   
>> No, in the case of an rfc2822 message carried over an rfc2821
>>     
> transport
>   
>> there is no backchannel (as defined in the chris/bob joint definition)
>> since rfc2821 deprecated the rfc281 TURN command.
>> In rfc2821 there is no way that a response may be transmitted over the
>> same connection as the request.
>> -bob
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com] 
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:20 PM
>> To: Paul Fremantle
>> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
>> defined
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> I still don't agree that this is right. I think there may be cases
>>>     
>>>       
>> where 
>>
>>   
>>     
>>> there is a new transport level connection. The main point is that the
>>>       
>
>   
>>> response channel is transport-defined not WS-A defined.
>>>     
>>>       
>> Hm.  For a SOAP-over-SMTP binding, would you expect the backchannel to
>> be 
>> a response message, the equivalent of the recipient invoking the
>>     
> 'reply'
>   
>> function on its mail user-agent?  (I think the question is
>>     
> interesting; 
>   
>> either there is no back-channel or there is only the back-channel.)  I
>>     
>
>   
>> think it's up to the particular transport binding to say, tho.
>>
>>         /r$
>>
>> --
>> STSM
>> Senior Security Architect
>> DataPower SOA Appliances
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>   

-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com