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

RE: Amended proposal for i059

From: Yalcinalp, Umit <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 17:35:10 -0800
Message-ID: <2BA6015847F82645A9BB31C7F9D64165CC1F67@uspale20.pal.sap.corp>
To: "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
We need to approach this from the perspective of problem solving. You
seem to be changing the doc so that SOAP 1.1 and SOAP 1.2 have equal
(a) I like that you are more inclusive about response endpoints and they
should be extended to other response endpoints, to cover acks to help
other specifications. This is aligned with the CR issue we result wrt
the definition of anonymous in the SOAP binding. 
(b) I do not follow why we need yet another definition of anonymous
address here in Section 3.1.2. We already have the definition which we
tinkered with in the SOAP binding document. I really can not follow what
it adds in the WSDL document as stated. 
The last paragraph of this section, however, is in the right direction. 
(c) You changed the slant by adding Section which de-couples of
the usage of the "Anonymous" marker and coupling it with the usage of
"anonymous" on the wire. 
I think first the wg has to decide whether the semantics of the binding
is with the extension and whether it is coupled with the WSDL document
as an extension or it is defined in the SOAP binding. 
This change presupposes that we actually move this section to the SOAP
binding document. If we were to do this, the writeup would make more
sense  as it talks about the behaviour from the perspective of the
presence of the anonymous addresses on the wire (to be added to SOAP
binding document) and then relating the semantics of the markup
<Anonymous> to constrain the behaviour (in WSDL binding document), 
For example: 
{When the anonymous address is used, the outbound message MUST be sent
over the same HTTP connection as the inbound message}. 
What does this usage apply to? What happens if the Anonymous marker was
"prohibited" in WSDL? 
I really think that we should first answer the where the SOAP binding
extension goes before we go there... 


	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
	Sent: Friday, Dec 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 01:33:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC