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

RE: Amended proposal for i059

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:05:22 -0800
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C06B88F@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Isn't this ironic.  I was just working on a rewrite that did much of the
same.  The one thing that I had done, which I won't propose at this
time, is that WS-A create a simple MEPs to be SOAP version agnostic,
then map the simple MEPs to SOAP 1.1 or the appropriate SOAP 1.2 MEPs.
However, let's try to rally around this text..

 

I have a few amendments I'd suggest, mostly involving shortening up the
wording a fair bit..  A significant technical change is removing the
requirement for an empty soap envelope.  The presence of the
wsaw:UsingAddressing element does not necessarily change the SOAP
1.1/HTTP binding, particularly if anonymous is used.  So I suggest
saying nothing rather than specifying something that effectively means
"keep it the way it was".  I've removed the discussion about the
wsaw:UsingAddressing element to say just WS-Addressing changes it when
anon is used.  If WS-A isn't engaged, then the text doesn't apply...
The soap 1.1 wording for inbound/outbound can also be collapsed to just
"receiver of a message" to cover 2 one-ways and avoid confusion about
whether the outbound message is recursively an inbound message.  There
is an interesting proposal in XMLP land to make request-response
equivalent to request-optional-response, so I've tried to take that into
account by saying "part of a single MEP" rather than "MUST comply with
..." because DH's wording leaves that open to the question of 1 or 2
MEPs.  I also changed the negative wording (MUST NOT) of the soap 1.2
anon not used to be +ve wording.  

 

I'm not sure what the heading #s should be as I'm not sure which
document and where these bindings should appear, so I removed the #s.
This does feel like it has a real affinity for section 3.5 of the ws-a
soap binding doc, a natural "3.6 Anonymous Address not used in SOAP".
It could also be in a separate WS-Addressing document.

 

I hope that moving from 11 lines of description to 5 helps progress
things.  I think it would be hard to get to 4 or fewer lines :-)

 

 

SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding

 

WS-Addressing changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding when the anonymous
address is not used.  In this case, the receiver of a message MUST
respond with a 202 status code and an empty HTTP body, aka no SOAP
envelope.  If a non-anonymous address is used, the outbound message MUST
be sent using a separate connection using the address value of the
specified by appropriate response endpoint 

 

SOAP 1.2 binding

 

1.      When the anonymous address is used, then the inbound and any
outbound message are part of a single SOAP request-response MEP [soap
1.2 adjuncts ref]

2.      When the anonymous address is not used, then any outbound
message is part of a different MEP than the inbound message.

 

Old Text for easy reference

3.1.2.1 Extension to SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding

 

The presence of the wsaw:UsingAddressing element in the binding or
endpoint (port) components of the endpoint description extends the
semantics of the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding, by relaxing the requirement that
the outbound message be sent over the same HTTP connection over which
the inbound message was received. 

1.      When the anonymous address is used, the outbound message MUST be
sent over the same HTTP connection as the inbound message.  

2.      When the anonymous address is not used, the receipt of the
inbound message MUST be acknowledged with a status message (202) by the
receiver using the HTTP connection that generated the inbound message.
The receipt message MUST contain an empty SOAP envelope.  (Lets discuss
this further)

a.      If no response is sent, no further action is required

b.      When a non-anonymous address is used, the outbound message MUST
be sent using a separate connection using the address value of the
specified by appropriate response endpoint.  If the connection is an
HTTP connection, the outbound message must be acknowledged as above. 

 

3.1.2.1 Behavior for SOAP 1.2

 

3.      When the anonymous address is used, then the inbound and
outbound messages together MUST comply with the SOAP request-response
MEP defined in section 6.2 of the SOAP 1.2 adjuncts, as bound to the
transport of the endpoint. 

4.      When the anonymous address is not used, the sending of the
outbound message, if any, MUST NOT be part of the same SOAP MEP as the
receipt of the inbound message.

 

 

Cheers,

Dave

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Friday, December 16, 2005 2:23 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Amended proposal for i059

 

In line with the discussion on Monday's call and the email I just sent
out, here is an amended version of the proposal for UsingAddressing.  My
additions and changes are shown in green.  Deleted text has been quietly
omitted.  Points of interest:

*	I have substituted "response endpoint" for [reply endpoint] and
wsa:replyTo, and defined "response endpoint" as "[reply endpoint] or
[fault endpoint] as the case may be".
*	I have tried to consistently use "inbound message" for "request"
and "outbound message" for response, in line with WSDL use of "in" and
"out" and in contrast to "request" and "response" in the SOAP and HTTP
context.
*	In combining my proposal with the existing proposal, I noticed
that much of the text in each was actually independent of which version
of SOAP is in use.  I have combined these and boiled them down a bit,
shortening both in the process.
*	I completely removed the text about anonymous being "required"
etc. from the SOAP section.  I believe this is in line with Marc's
comment about repeated text.  The first section discusses when the
anonymous URI can appear, the following sections discuss what that
means, and as far as I can tell the two are independent.
*	All this notwithstanding, the core of the original proposal for
SOAP1.1/HTTP is basically intact.  In generally, I believe this latest
version has essentially the same semantics as the previous one, but is
briefer, (hopefully) clearer, and applicable to both SOAP 1.1 and SOAP
1.2

As always, comments are welcome.
Received on Saturday, 17 December 2005 00:05:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:10 GMT