RE: [wsdm] Interop: more precision

["Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>]

We can either fix the WSDM now or run interop over multiple versions of WSA. I don't think we could fix WSDM now except we go through a very extensive errata update again.

 

This means that endpoints will need to support 2003/03 and 2004/08 versions of the WSA *at the same time*. It does not seem to be a difficult architectural aspect, but implementation-wise, I guess one of the outcomes of the interop will be the recommendaation for the TC to get this back in shape ASAP :). I would imagine.

 

I'd prefer to debug the one case where either S:mustUnderstand="0" or such attribute is not present. I'm ok with it being there but ="0".

 

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11749

 

---

From: David Melgar [mailto:dmelgar@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 3:04 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor S
Cc: Murray, Bryan P.; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsdm] Interop: more precision

Igor and I have been having a 
similar discussion regarding the complexity involved with dealing with multiple 
versions of WSA. 

I would strongly 
encourage anything that we can do to simplify these versioning issues. It should 
not be the focus of a WSDM interop. 

That said, it does seem odd to say that endpoints must support both 
versions of WSA yet the must understand flag cannot be set. I agree that we 
should not explore these issues during the interop, but I would think it 
helpful to flush this out before the interop and clearly spell out 
requirements in the interop document. 

BTW, there is no 2003/02 version of WSA. The 2003/06 versions of WSRF and 
WSN reference 2003/02 early in the text but it is later corrected in the WSDL to 
refer to 2003/03. 

At the risk of 
airing dirty laundry, is there any possibility of picking a single version of 
WS-Addressing to be used by WSDM and in the interop? This mix of WSA versions 
introduces needless complexity and hidden issues such as the WSDL header 
declaration issue mentioned. The most straightforward route would be for WSDM to 
adopt the same WS-Addressing version used by its dependent specs, ie 
2003/03. 

David Melgar
Web 
Services Toolkit Development
Emerging 
Technologies
dmelgar@us.ibm.com

"Sedukhin, Igor S" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>

03/09/2005 12:31 PM

To	"Murray, Bryan P." <bryan.murray@hp.com>, <wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [wsdm] Interop: more precision

I'm not sure there is a good understanding of all 
 combinations of WSA + S:mustUnderstand. I don't think it'll be an 
interesting  thing to explore at the WSDM interop. 

-- 
Igor 
Sedukhin  .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) 
-- (631)  342-4325 
..1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY  11749

---

From: Murray, Bryan P. 
 [mailto:bryan.murray@hp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:56  AM 
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject:  RE: [wsdm] Interop: more 
precision 

You are right about 
the WSDL statement because that would  mean the app only accepts one 
version of WSA, and we must accept 2  versions. 
  
But, why is it 
important tto leave off s:mustUnderstand?  This is just a statement by the 
client that if the service does not understand  this header it should fail. 
So if the attribute is on wsa03:To or wsa04:To, it  should not matter 
because the service will understand both. 
  
Bryan

---

From: Sedukhin, Igor S 
 [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:37  AM 
To: Murray, Bryan P.; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject:  RE: [wsdm] Interop: more 
precision 

This is because of 
different WSA versions used in the tree  of specs. If WSDL says WSA 2003/03 
headers needs to be present, but because you  followed relationship your 
EPR is 2004/08 version you will be in conflict with  the WSDL describing 
that endpoint. One would need to write a significant amout  of code to 
reconcile these and other assertions. In order to allow any WSA 
 version to be used, headers must not be specified in WSDL. Same applies to 
 S:mustUnderstand on WSA headers. 
  
This is just to ease our fun with 
composing two WSA  versions into our implementations. 

-- 
Igor 
Sedukhin  .. (igor.sedukhin@ca.com) 
-- (631)  342-4325 
..1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY  11749

---

From: Murray, Bryan P. 
 [mailto:bryan.murray@hp.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 11:29  AM 
To: Sedukhin, Igor S; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject:  RE: [wsdm] Interop: more 
precision 

Igor, 
  
I don't 
understand why we need to make the following  assertions: 
        
reax and indicate that S:mustUnderstand MUST not 
be indicated on WSA  headers  
        wsdl-soap:headers MUST NOT be decalred for any WSA headers 

It seems to me that normal SOAP or WSDL processing  would handle 
these cases just fine. 
  
  
Also, I am not sure 
if it is stated or not, but we  should be sure to say that endpoints must 
accept messages for at least the WSA  versions of 2003/02 and 2004/08 of 
SOAP headers. 
  
Bryan

---

From: Sedukhin, Igor S 
 [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2005 8:16  AM 
To: wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org 
Subject: [wsdm] Interop:  more precision 


I think to make it easier for us to interop 
we need  to state this in the interop document: 
  
        
  
        
SOAP 1.1  MUST be used 
        SOAP 1.1 over HTTP MUST be used as described in http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/NOTE-SOAP-20000508/#_Toc478383526   
        HTTP 1.1  or 1.0 MUST be used http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2616 
  
        
reax and  indicate that S:mustUnderstand 
MUST not be indicated on WSA headers   
        move up  to WS-I BP 1.1 http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html   
          
        if WSDL  is provided 
        
         WSDL 1.1 MUST  be used 
        
         wsdl-soap:headers MUST NOT be decalred for any WSA headers   
          
        when WSA  is used to send a message 
        
         Only  syncronous HTTP messaaging MUST be intended i.e.   
        
         
         wsa:ReplyTo  or (wsa:From if wsa:ReplyTo is absent) MUST either be 
absent or indicate  wsa:Address -> anonymous role URI 

        when WSA  2004/08 version is used 
        
         wsa:ReferenceParameters MUST not be included in EPRs 

I think this will facilitate the interop 
as it is all  about proper composition of the standards. Too many 
variations may get us  troubleshooting basic WS infrastructure most of the 
time. 

-- Igor Sedukhin  .. 
(igor.sedukhin@ca.com) 
-- (631)  342-4325 ..1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY  11749