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

NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:43:35 +0100
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <20050218154335.GF10971@w3.org>

-=- Description -=-

We define as message addressing properties concepts that happen to
exist in certain SOAP underlying protocols. A good example is the
[action] message addressing property and the action parameter of the
application/soap+xml media type carried by HTTP's Content-Type header.

We need to clearly define the relationship for this information when
it appears in different places, i.e. whether they are independent,
equal, or related another way.

-=- Justification -=-

Questions arose about the relationship of this similar information
appearing in different places[3]. Core hints that [action] and SOAP
Action are similar for example[4] though the description provided is
SOAP 1.1 specific.

We should provide a basis for such equivalence rules for a variety of
message addressing properties and bindings.

-=- Target -=-

SOAP binding

-=- Proposal -=-

SOAP features were created in part to deal with the fact that
different bindings provide different (lowercase f) features, and that
certain things will sometime need to be expressed as SOAP headers,
whereas sometimes they will be able to travel in the underlying
protocol outside of the envelope.

As we have a set of such information, I believe that we should use the
SOAP features and properties framework to deal with them.

That will allow bindings to clearly express whether they have some
built-in mechanisms for some of this information. In particular, this
will clarify the relationship between these built-in mechanisms and
our message addressing properties.

To refer to an earlier email about action and message-id[2], I believe
that a SOAP Action should be equivalent to an [action] message
addressing property, and an message id in an email binding should be
equivalent to our [message id] property. As an additional foreword,
this looks like but is different from an F&P proposal that I made
earlier[5]; the WG felt at the time[6] that SOAP F&P were a more
appropriate way to do what I was trying to achieve, so here it is.

I propose the following changes, all in the SOAP binding:

1. Define a SOAP 1.2 feature, the SOAP Addressing 1.0 Feature. The
   SOAP Addressing 1.0 module that we are defining (see my other email
   about defining modules) is implementing the SOAP Addressing 1.0
   Feature, identified by the URI:
   http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature

2. Define each message addressing property as being a SOAP property of
   the SOAP Addressing 1.0 Feature, using the following pattern:
   http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature/{PROPERTY}
   where property is:
   - [destination]		->	Destination
   - [source endpoint]		->	SourceEndpoint
   - [reply endpoint]		->	ReplyEndpoint	
   - [fault endpoint]		->	FaultEndpoint
   - [message id]		->	MessageId
   - [relationship]		->	Relationship
   - [reference parameters]	->	ReferenceParameters

   You will have noted that [action] is missing from this list; I
   believe that [action] should be the property
   http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/Action as they are
   identical.

   As an example of this benefit, suppose that somebody defines an
   SMTP binding for SOAP 1.2 with support for the Internet Message
   Format (RFC2822) which would provide the Message-Id header, and
   MIME (RFC 2045) which provide the Content-Type header; this binding
   would support:
   - the SOAP Action feature
   - expressing
     http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature/MessageId
     as an mid: URI.

3. We should make a statement, if an underlying protocol binding
   supports carrying one of the properties from the SOAP Addressing
   1.0 Feature, whether:
   - the value should be duplicated, i.e. expressed both at the
     underlying binding level and in the envelope;
   - the SOAP header doesn't need to be serialized in the envelope as
     it's expressed at the underlying binding level.

Comments?

Cheers,

Hugo

  1. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/0067.html
  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0112.html
  3. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/0109.html
  4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050215/#_Toc77464322
  5. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/0067.html
  6. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/4/dec-f2f-minutes.html#item12
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Friday, 18 February 2005 15:43:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:03 GMT