Re: WS-Addr issues

Mark wrote:
...
> If wsa:Action is the annointed mechanism that's going to clean up that
> mess, I'm all for that, but IMO, that's going to require calling a
> spade a spade, and not dodging the hard questions.
> 
> Does wsa:Action indicate the operation or not?  If not, what does it
> indicate, and how does that contribute to the semantics of the message?
> If yes, how does it relate to the underlying protocol method, the GED,
> the WSDL style, WSDL operation name, and WSDL operation name mapping?
> Or, if wsa:Action is sometimes an operation and sometimes not, what
> else can it be, and what tells a recipient of a message what it is for
> a given message or service?  Operation style?  Something else?

+1
In basic soap between the transport url, the HTTP Action and the env:Body
a service provider was free to require whatever they wanted in each and
could interpret each one however they wanted - for better or worse.
If WSAddr wants to change that, and in essence remove those options,
then it should come right out and say wsa:Action is "the operation" and
should be used for dispatching - period.  This will force a certain
implementation choice on everyone (again, for better or worse) but
at least its a firm position.

At the same time though, if WSAddr does not want to impose a certain
implementation choice then it should discourage the users and future
spec authors who leverage WSAddr (like WS-MDEX) from misinterpreting the
vague wording such that they use WSAddr as justification for doing it
themselves.

-Dug