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

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

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:27:00 -0400
To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050825032700.GL17056@markbaker.ca>

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Aug 24, 2005 at 02:54:51PM -0700, Mark Nottingham wrote:
> 
> On 23/08/2005, at 8:48 PM, Mark Baker wrote:
> 
> >>Consider the following scenario:
> >>
> >>SH1 -> H2 -> SH3 -> SH4
> >>
> >>where:
> >>SH1 is a SOAP/HTTP node, the initial SOAP sender
> >>H2 is a HTTP cache
> >>SH3 is a SOAP/HTTP node, a SOAP intermediary
> >>SH4 is a SOAP/HTTP node, the ultimate SOAP receiver
> >>
> >>Using the current HTTP binding, I'd expect the HTTP request URI for
> >>SH1 -> H2 -> SH3 to be the HTTP URI for SH3 (*not* SH4). I'd expect
> >>the HTTP request URI for SH3 -> SH4 to be the HTTP URI for SH4. I.e.
> >>there would be two different HTTP request URIs for the single SOAP
> >>message path. If WS-Addr were used then I'd expect the value of the
> >>[destination] message addressing property to be the HTTP URI for SH4
> >>so there'd be a clear difference between the value of [destination]
> >>and the HTTP request URI at SH1.
> >>
> >
> >Yes, I understand that to be your (and others) positions.  I believe
> >that position is inconsistent with the HTTP specification, and
> >possibly inconsistent with the SOAP specification (per the ambiguity
> >over what ImmediateDestination means).
> >
> >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.
> >
> 
> Mark,
> 
> How is that inconsistent with the HTTP specification / semantics?  
> Irrespective of SOAP, there are many examples where applications have  
> a concept of a message path that's greater than the end-to-end HTTP  
> connection. E.g., Akamai and similar "reverse proxies" will act as  
> the origin server -- i.e., the request-uri is addressed to them --  

Right, but in those cases, as you say, they act as the origin server and
therefore the message terminates there (which also makes them the
ultimate receiver).  Marc's example described a single message path, so
I knew SH3 couldn't be a reverse proxy, since such a configuration
involves (at least) two messages, two message paths, two ultimate
recipients, in SOAP terms.

Mark.
-- 
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.          http://www.markbaker.ca
Coactus; Web-inspired integration strategies   http://www.coactus.com
Received on Thursday, 25 August 2005 03:25:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:08 GMT