W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > August 2006

RE: [NEW ISSUE]: Possible interop issue with WS-Addressing

From: Gilbert Pilz <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 12:48:43 -0700
Message-ID: <E16EB59B8AEDF445B644617E3C1B3C9C02065A0D@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

I think this is a legitimate concern. From where I sit it seems that the
entire concept of "anonymous" (as defined by WS-Addressing) conflates
two separate issues; (1) is the entity addressable (i.e. can it accept
incoming connections) and (2) is the entity identifiable?
WS-RM has run into this because it needs a way to identify
non-addressable entities. Clearly "../role/anonymous" isn't going to cut
it because a single service may have many non-addressable requesters. At
one point the WS-RX group considered using reference parameters to
disambiguate these requesters, but reference parameters are supposed to
be opaque so we didn't want to do that.
To work around this WS-RM defines its own "URI template":
The base "../anonymouse" indicates that the entity is non-addressable
while the "id={uuid}" query string serves to uniquely identify the
What Doug is asking for would require SOAP processors that are enforcing
the restriction implied by wsaw:Anonymous to recognize that both
http://www.w3.org/2005/03/addressing/role/anonymous *and*
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/anonymouse?id=* represent
"anonymous URIs". This obviously begs the question "How many more URI
templates will be defined that represent anonymous URIs and how would
you manage multiple URIs/templates"?

- gp   


	From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Freund
	Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 11:14 AM
	To: [WS-A]
	Subject: FW: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE]: Possible interop issue with

	This comes from the folks working ws-rm in the ws-rx OASIS tc.
The meeting is this afternoon at 4:00 eastern, and the TC has not yet
accepted or acted on this proposed new issue, but I would like to know
how folks think about this.





		From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 12:00 PM
	To: Mark Little
[CC list removed]
	Subject: [ws-rx] [NEW ISSUE]: Possible interop issue with


	Title: Possible interop issue with WS-Addressing: 
	The WS-Addressing WSDL wsaw:Anonymous element indicates whether
or not the use of the anonymous URI is optional, required or prohibited.
This causes a problem for MakeConnection since it doesn't use the WSA
anonymous URI - instead it defines it own.  Which means that an endpoint
compliant to WSA may reject a use of the RM anon URI not because it
doesn't support MakeConnection but rather because the definition of this
WSDL element doesn't allow for other specs to define their own anon
	The RX TC, thru its connections with the WS-Addressing WG,
should see if its possible to modify the language of this element such
that it doesn't tie itself to just the one anonymous URI defined by WSA,
rather phrase its requirements more broadly, saying that this element
indicates whether or not a URI referring to the transport-specific
back-channel is optional, required or forbidden.  This would allow for
other specs to define their own anon-like URI (like RM did) but still,
in essence, mean the transport back-channel. 
Received on Thursday, 3 August 2006 19:49:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:14 UTC