- From: Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 09:38:51 -0700
- To: public-ws-addressing-comments@w3.org
a) Section 3 of core ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050331/ ) states " Message addressing properties provide references for the endpoints involved in an interaction. The use of these properties to support specific interaction is in general defined by both the semantics of the properties themselves and the implicit or explicit contract that governs the message exchange. If explicitly available, this contract can take different forms including but not being limited to WSDL MEPs and interfaces; business processes and e-commerce specifications, among others, can also be used to define explicit contracts between the parties. " For migration purposes an pre-existing wsdl defined request/response service endpoint may wish to publish an EPR, which contains the http POST url in the address element, an which does not conatin ref parms, and may contain wsdl specific metadata (e.g., port type. Such an endpoint may support a contract specifying that it will accept ws addressing headers and behave as specified in ws addressing spec when it receives these headers, however also specifying that it will continue to accept http post requests without ws addressing headers. This needs to be reflected in the above paragraph somehow. One proposed solution is to add the above paragraph to this section. b) In the Soap binding spec ( http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-soap-20050331/ ) 5.2 Message Addressing Property Required A required message addressing property is absent. [Code] S:Sender [Subcode] wsa:MessageAddressingPropertyRequired [Reason] A required message addressing property is not present. [Detail] [Missing Property QName] It should be clarified that there is no requirement that the above fault MUST be sent by every endpoint which has published an endpoint reference, when it receives invocations from senders which are not conforming to WS-addressing. One proposed solution is to add the following paragraph: “Endpoints should be allowed to support “migration” contracts which allow clients to continue to invoke operations outside of the scope of ws-addressing, even though that service endpoint claims conformance to ws-addressing (i.e., it will act within the ws-addressing behaviour if the sender includes ws-addressing headers in their request).” -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
Received on Wednesday, 20 April 2005 16:39:10 UTC