W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > August 2005

Re: wsa:To -> SOAP1.2's ImmediateDestination

From: Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:21:26 -0400 (EDT)
To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
cc: Marc Hadley <Marc.Hadley@Sun.COM>, "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44L0.0508240008230.29795-100000@smtp.datapower.com>

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005, Mark Baker wrote:
> My position, as you summized, is that the SH4 URI goes in the
> Request-URI, as that's the only interpretation consistent with HTTP
> semantics; the node identified by the Request-URI provides the
> response.

As you well know, SOAP treats HTTP as a transport protocol, not an
application protocol.  So the justification for your interpretation
here is just being obstinate. :)  Until WS-Addressing came along,
SOAP had no end-to-end for defining the target.  As far as the SOAP
processing model went, each hop explicitly addressed the next hop.
For example, if the ultimate recipient is to be delivered via SMTP,
nobody expects the intermediate nodes to see a mailto URL.  Yes,
you've said there's no reason why this can't be done (too tired
to track down the email links).  But it is not what anyone in this
community expects.

> yes, a non-terminating (proxy-like) model is what I have in mind.  I
> should also add though, for clarity and completeness' sake, that
> SOAP/HTTP gateways can be SOAP intermediaries, and I'm not suggesting
> those shouldn't be able to be used, except insofar as they must also
> be the ultimate recipient.

That is not the way SOAP works.  You know this.

> Earlier you mentioned a "SOAP level" and an "HTTP level".  FWIW, my
> view is that there is only one level there that both technologies share.

That is not the way SOAP works.  You know this.

"Pretending" that it does work this way, or claiming to view things
as if it did work that way, only confuses newcomers, and wastes
other people's time as they try to "teach" you.  Enough Socratic
games, okay?

> I think we can probably agree that there's ambiguity in the
> default SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding which the WS-Addressing WG interpreted
> one particular way.

There is no ambiguity; there are just those who want it to be
something other than what it is.


Rich Salz                  Chief Security Architect
DataPower Technology       http://www.datapower.com
XS40 XML Security Gateway  http://www.datapower.com/products/xs40.html
Received on Wednesday, 24 August 2005 04:21:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:10 UTC