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

Re: Anon / RM MakeConnection: [reply ep] = none

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:45:27 -0500
To: Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Message-ID: <OF949ED71E.0D1521F6-ON852571C5.004A2BE8-852571C5.004B8A5F@us.ibm.com>
Alastair,

Please see my comments below.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 08/09/2006 03:24:35 AM:

> Chris, Paul:
> 
> What's wrong with [reply endpoint = none]?
> 
> 1. None URI means "no response expected", implies transport ack 
> only. Contents of transport response body would reasonably be 
> ignored by a WS-A implementation.

See my previous missives on this matter. "no response expected" does not
mean only a transport-level ack. The SOAP Request Optional Response MEP 
that
is being worked on in the XMLP WG as part of the SOAP1.2 PER, to address
the WS-Addressing WG's concerns regarding the lack of a SOAP MEP for 
one-way
messages, makes it clear that a SOAP envelope MAY be carried in the HTTP
response, but that it need NOT be the "response" message to the "request"
message, as that would be sent to the [reply endpoint] (if any response
is expected at the application level). 

> 
> 2. WS-A receiver of [reply endpoint] = None URI will not stall for 
> an application handoff or for application response: it will pass the
> inbound message, and immediately ack the sender, and lose all 
> context (transport response, message id correlation information).

Point? MC is handled in the RM middleware.

> 
> 3. RM would be asking WS-A implementations to stop natural, generic 
> behaviours 1. and 2., and become aware of RM. 

I disagree.

> 
> 4. None URI means ack only. Anon means SOAP envelope in the 
> transport response, always. New URI needed to mean: "May be SOAP, 
> may be ack". Receiver of new URI (APAO below) knows to stall for 
> application release before acking (empty response body) or SOAPing 
> (full response body).
> 
> Alternatives
> 
> 1. We can't use [reply endpoint] = anon (the default) because the 
> WS-A SOAP Binding limits this to cases where there is always a SOAP 
> envelope in the transport response (ack only forbidden). I believe 

No, it doesn't if there is no application-level response. A one-way
WSDL operation has no application-level response. Whether the [reply
endpoint] is anon, none or anything else is irrelevant to whether
there is an application-level response.

> this is the only obstacle. Everything else is proceeding from that 
> WS-A limitation. (If this perceived limitation does not exist, then 
> I would see no reason not to use anon URI.)
> 
> 2. Create a special URI, as anticipated by the WS-A SOAP Binding, 
> that means: "Transport response can either be message or ack-alone".

We've been through this. We have agreed upon what is currently specified.
No change is needed.

> 
> 3. Call this special URI .../anonymous/permittingAckOnly (APAO). 
> [Not a good name, a strawman]
> 
> 4. Send MakeConnection/ReplyTo/Address=APAO. Allow ref-params in the
> normal manner. (Ref params can't be handled with current solution). 
> 
> 5. Permit MakeConnection to contain a sequence Identifier, if 
> desired, (as per current solution).
> 
> 6. Allow for an extension element in MC, if the app wants to 
> identify the conversation. The identity of the conversation only has
> to be unambiguous between the application parties, so UUID is bound 
> to be right, but not always needed. The type of the identification 
> is an app issue. If you don't like that, permit MC to contain a 
> connection identifier, type is UUID (closest to current solution).
> 
> 7. Decide who's going to own the special APAO URI. It really should 
> be WS-Addressing, as this is a general, app-level requirement. RM is
> permitting an application behaviour (the message stream is 
> application content, which may, in the RM context, be bracketed by 
> some RM set-up and tear-down, as it happens). 
> 
> 8. If process/timescales force RM to "stand in" for WS-Addressing, 
> then this means worrying about impact on WS-A implementations (which
> is where this started from for me). See above re implications for 
> WS-A implementations of use of none URI
> 
> Alastair
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christopher B Ferris wrote: 
> 
> Alastair, 
> 
> I don't think that MakeConnection "invites a response"... rather, it
> opens up the back-channel 
> (when transmitted over a protocol such as HTTP that has an inherent 
> back-channel) for the 
> transmission of a message. 
> 
> I think that there is a difference... a large one at that. 
> 
> A SOAP Response is entirely different than a protocol response 
> message. In the context 
> of a oneway message, carried over a protocol such as HTTP, there is 
> a response message 
> that may not carry a SOAP envelope in its entity body. It is a 
> protocol-level response, not necessarily 
> a SOAP level-response. The fact that we are exploiting this is what 
> MakeConnection is all about. 
> 
> As Paul indicated, I would be happy if we suggested that WS-A none 
> URI be specified as the 
> ReplyTo address, but frankly, I think that that is something for the
> WS-A WG to work out. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295 
> 
> Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com> wrote on 08/08/2006 
> 11:42:10 AM:
> 
> > Chris,
> > 
> > Redoing part of WS-A in RM creates difficulty in WS-A WSDL (start of
> > thread). Raises question: Why won't standard WS-A anon facility work?
> > 
> > You have to say something about where you reply to. If you want the 
> > reply to come on the back-channel then WS-A has a way of saying that
> > (and you get that by default).
> > 
> > If you say there is no reply, then you are saying: don't send a 
> > response. But MC precisely invites a response. How is a WS-A 
> > implementation supposed to understand (without being RM aware) that 
> > reply=none really means (functionally) reply=anon? I perceive 
> > unnecessary layering tangle. WS-A layer now expected to hold HTTP 
> > response for app, even though told that there is no response.
> > 
> > Researching further, I don't understand why an RM-specific 
> > alternative to reply=anon has been introduced for the "address" 
> > case, but not for the "sequence" case. 
> > 
> > I believe regular "use back channel" feature of WS-A can be used, 
> > and the RM layer can handle RM "sessions", in both cases.
> > 
> > Does my example of sequence case indicate expected behaviour? Would 
> > it be wrong to say MC/reply=anon with sequence case?
> > 
> > First part of long message addresses Doug's points about the 
> > application-level set-up message: I don't understand the relevance 
> > of that type of message.
> > 
> > Alastair
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Christopher B Ferris wrote: 
> > 
> > Alastair, 
> > 
> > Is this a long and drawn out manner of stating that when a message 
> > is a true oneway (e.g. no 
> > response is expected) then the wsa:ReplyTo should be the WS-A none 
> > URI rather than 
> > simply leaving it absent and hence falling trap to the "if not 
> > present, default to anon" gotcha? 
> > 
> > I guess I am not seeing an issue here, although I guess it would be 
> > fine if we recommended or required 
> > that the MakeConnection wsa:ReplyTo MAP carry the WS-A none URI. 
> > 
> > Cheers, 
> > 
> > Christopher Ferris
> > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> > phone: +1 508 377 9295 
> > 
> > public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 08/08/2006 07:06:32 AM:
> > 
> > > Doug, Paul --
> > > 
> > > I'm going to try to address both your comments. if I can summarize 
> > > Paul's it was: what's the big deal about [reply endpoint] when 
> > > MakeConnection is "one-way"?. 
> > > 
> > > Given RX timescales you may want to treat these remarks as "early 
> > > public review".
> > > 
> > > * * *
> > > 
> > > Doug's message 1 is an application-level set-up call which 
> > > establishes common understanding of the UUID. This type of message 
> > > is exemplified by that shown in the CD example Step 1, unless I have
> > > completely misunderstood.
> > > 
> > > In that example, a subscriber, who cannot listen, sends a subscribe 
> > > message to a publisher, saying something like "subscribe me for 
> > > topics A, B, C. The identity of this subscription request is UUID 
> > > X". Thereafter, the publisher knows that X equals "subscription for 
> > > topics A, B, C".
> > > 
> > > Assertion 1 (please correct me if I am wrong): The format, content 
> > > etc of this type of message (and its manner of transmission) are 
> > > entirely application-specific. It may or may not require an 
> > > acknowledgement. It could be sent by carrier pigeon, or by fax. The 
> > > subscribe message, if sent as SOAP-with-Addressing, might receive a 
> > > reply, or might not receive a reply, and if it did, it might receive
> > > it anon or addressable. There are no RM rules that apply to this 
> > > message. There are only application rules. It cannot do its job 
> > > usefully unless it passes the UUID: that is all we can say.
> > > 
> > > Assertion 2. At present there is an RM rule which says: "the 
> > > mutually understood UUID must be reflected in the [destination 
> > > endpoint] according to an RM URI scheme". There are no RM rules to 
> > > say whether the connection UUID, during the course of establishing 
> > > mutual understanding, travels alone, embedded in a URI, in a body 
> > > element or a header element. These are all matters of bilateral 
> > > agreement at an app level between (in this case) the 
> > > consumer/subscriber and the producer/publisher.
> > > 
> > > [The example is potentially a bit misleading in this respect. 
> > > 
> > > The use of the full "anon-URI?id={uuid}" value in the <targetEPR/>, 
> > > and the use of the element name "targetEPR" make one think 
> > > "addressing", when one would be better off thinking "subscription 
> > > identity" (at an app level). The example set-up message would work 
> > > perfectly well if it read:
> > > 
> > > <S:Body>
> > >     <!-- subscription details --> 
> > >     <SubscriptionIdentity>{uuid}</SubscriptionIdentity>
> > > </S:Body>
> > > 
> > > Btw, given that the use of MakeConnection requires a prior 
> > > understanding between two parties of the connection identity, there 
> > > seems no reason why {uuid} has to be a UUID. It does need to be 
> > > bilaterally unambiguous.]
> > > 
> > > * * *
> > > 
> > > Message 2 is MakeConnection. If the subscriber sends a 
> > > MakeConnection, specifying UUID X, then the publisher knows it is 
> > > dealing with traffic relating to subscription X, i.e. for topics A, 
> > > B and C. At an application level, we assume that the contract 
> > > thereafter is: start reliably communicating a stream of messages, 
> > > relating to topics A, B and C, therefore implying sequence creation 
> > > etc, until something causes the stream to close. 
> > > 
> > > So the subscriber will repeatedly send MakeConnection, citing the 
> > > UUID X, read the HTTP response, and handle the response as if it 
> > > were an inbound RM/RM-app message.
> > > 
> > > The exchange that RM defines (rather than illustrates) is the 
> > > MakeConnection, back-call-on-the-connection one. It's this exchange 
> > > that I am discussing. MakeConnection is the message affected by the 
> > > WSAW anon=required discussion, as I see it.
> > > 
> > > [While it is probably helpful for diagnostic reasons to repeat the 
> > > UUID back to the sender of MakeConnection in the [destination 
> > > endpoint], it is actually redundant, as the HTTP Response is 
> > > automatically and uniquely correlated with the HTTP Request. This 
> > > might lead one to the conclusion that the simple solution would have
> > > been: send UUID on MakeConnection, and then respond to it on the 
> > > anonymous back-channel without reflection of UUID in any form 
> > > However, this would reduce the symmetry with the Sequence identified
> > > use of MakeConnection, see comments later]
> > > 
> > > * * *
> > > 
> > > There are two modes in which this exchange can work (reflecting the 
> > > joint proposal, as I understand it):
> > > 
> > > a) Send response as part of a sequence that already exists
> > > b) Use response to create a new sequence, etc
> > > 
> > > This is relevant to answering Paul F's question, relating to the 
> > > significance of ReplyTo.
> > > 
> > > If there is a sequence, then the sequence Identifier is a 
> > > correlation synonym for the UUID. The reply message may be sent on 
> > > the back-channel; it must carry the wsrm:Identifier (as a separate 
> > > header element), it need not carry the UUID.
> > > 
> > > If there is no sequence, then the reply message must carry or imply 
> > > the UUID. (I'm going to assume that carrying the UUID is better than
> > > implying it.) The question is how?
> > > 
> > > Looking at these two cases, it is striking that both 
> > > 
> > > a) require a response on the back-channel,
> > > b) need to carry an identifier (one of the sequence, one of the 
> > > "connection"/"session")
> > > 
> > > Doug's comment that there is no wsa:ReplyTo on the MakeConnection, 
> > > that it is "one way", is relevant here. In fact there is no such 
> > > thing (in the XML infoset) as a non-existent [reply endpoint]. If 
> > > wsa:ReplyTo is absent, then it is inferred to be the anon-URI. The 
> > > only way you can stop that inference is to set the [reply endpoint] 
> > > to none or to a "real address". I don't think you want to do either 
> > > of those things, in this context.
> > > 
> > > With these points in mind, I think it is worth looking again at my 
> > > previous postings. 
> > > 
> > > The orthodox way of saying "respond on the back-channel" is setting 
> > > [reply endpoint] to anon. This can be done explicitly or by 
> > > inference from absence.
> > > 
> > > I think there has to be a good reason to invent a new way of 
> > > expressing this semantic. Doing so has repercussions (see the 
> > > original starting point of this thread, re WSA W anon/required). The
> > > (very valuable) use case of MakeConnection does not require an 
> > > alternate mechnanism for stating the back channel semantic. 
> > > 
> > > We can illustrate all of this by placing three examples side by 
side:
> > > 
> > > * * *
> > > 
> > > 1. Example using sequence Identifier: MakeConnection and reply 
> [asper CD 04]
> > > 2. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: MakeConnection 
> > > and reply [as it could be, simplified]
> > > 3. Example using current Address [as per CD 04]
> > > 
> > > 1a. Example using sequence Identifier: MakeConnection
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > >         <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To>
> > > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: 
> > >         <wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >             <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous
> > > </wsa:Address>
> > >         </wsa:ReplyTo>
> > > -->
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >             <wsrm:Identifier>http://Business456.
> > > com/SubscribeTopics/Sequence/7456-3278</wsrm:Identifier>
> > >         </wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > 1b. Example using sequence Identifier: reply to MakeConnection
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo>
> > > <wsa:ReplyTo><wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService
> > > </wsa:Address></wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://example.com/subscriptionService/publish
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > >         <wsrm:Sequence>
> > >             <wsrm:Identifier>http://Business456.
> > > com/SubscribeTopics/Sequence/7456-3278</wsrm:Identifier>
> > >             <wsrm:MessageNumber>1</wsrm:MessageNumber>
> > >         </wsrm:Sequence>
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <!-- Publication re A, B or C -->
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > 2a. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: MakeConnection
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > >         <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To>
> > > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: 
> > >         <wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >             <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous
> > > </wsa:Address>
> > >         </wsa:ReplyTo>
> > > -->
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >             <wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier>http://Business456.com/
> > > SubscribeTopics/Stream/7457</wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier>
> > >         </wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > 2b. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: reply to 
> > > MakeConnection (CreateSequence)
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open-
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/CreateSequence
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > > <wsa:ReplyTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >         <wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier>
> > >             http://Business456.com/SubscribeTopics/Stream/7457
> > >         </wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier> 
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <wsrm:CreateSequence>
> > >             <wsrm:AcksTo>
> > >                 <wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService
> > > </wsa:Address>
> > >             </wsrm:AcksTo>
> > >         </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > 3a. Example using wsrm:Address: MakeConnection
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > >         <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To>
> > > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: 
> > >         <wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >             <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous
> > > </wsa:Address>
> > >         </wsa:ReplyTo>
> > > -->
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >             <wsrm:Address>
> > >                 http://docs.oasis-open.
> > > 
org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000
> > >             </wsrm:Address>
> > >         </wsrm:MakeConnection> 
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > 3b. Example using wsrm:Address: reply to MakeConnection 
(CreateSequence)
> > > 
> > > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> > > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"
> > >             xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> > >     <S:Header>
> > >         <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID>
> > >         <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/
> > > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo>
> > >         <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open-
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/CreateSequence
> > > </wsa:Action>
> > >         <wsa:To>
> > > 
> > > <!-- I believe this is WS-A illegal: reply To must equal request 
> > > ReplyTo/Address. --> 
> > > 
> > >             http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?
> > > id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000
> > >         </wsa:To>
> > > <wsa:ReplyTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:ReplyTo>
> > >     </S:Header>
> > >     <S:Body>
> > >         <wsrm:CreateSequence>
> > >             <wsrm:AcksTo>
> > >                 <wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService
> > > </wsa:Address>
> > >             </wsrm:AcksTo>
> > >         </wsrm:CreateSequence>
> > >     </S:Body>
> > > </S:Envelope>
> > > 
> > > Yours,
> > > 
> > > Alastair
> > > 
> > > Doug Davis wrote: 
> > > 
> > > Alastair, 
> > >   I think you're mixing up the messages a bit.  There are two 
messages 
> > > at play: 
> > > 1 - the message containing the EPR to send subsequent messages to. 
> > >     In some cases this message will have the EPR in its wsa:ReplyTo 
> > >     header, but it could also be placed someplace else depending 
> > >     on its use.  And it is this EPR that needs to be tagged as the 
> > >     polling one (ie. it has the RM anon URI). 
> > >     This message will contain application specific data in the Body 
> > >     so your suggestion of placing some UUID in there will not work. 
> > >     This gets back to the necessity to keep all info about where to 
> > >     send messages encapsulated into whatever EPR we want to be 
tagged 
> > >     as the polling one. 
> > > 
> > > 2 - the MakeConnection message. 
> > >     This message does not have a wsa:ReplyTo, its a one-way.  This 
> > >     message does contain a Body which is the correlation info used 
> > >     by the receiver of this message to find an appropriate message 
> > >     to send back.  So, basically the stuff in the Body must match 
> > >     the EPR from message 1.  And given that in some cases the only 
> > >     thing remaining from the EPR in message 1 is the serialized 
> > >     version of it, we must be able to find messages based solely 
> > >     on what's in the outgoing message itself.  Which means the 
> > >     wsa:To field.  Again, ref-p's are bad for this purpose. :-) 
> > > 
> > > HTH 
> > > 
> > > thanks 
> > > -Doug 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com> wrote on 08/07/2006 
> > > 02:02:55 PM:
> > > 
> > > > Doug,
> > > > 
> > > > I think I'm connecting, if you'll pardon the pun. 
> > > > 
> > > > 1. As I read WS-A, the [destination endpoint][address] must be set 

> > > > to [reply endpoint][address] for a reply.
> > > > 
> > > > 2. If [reply endpoint] is omitted (as per the CD example), then 
> > > > [reply endpoint] = anon, by default.
> > > > 
> > > > 3. If [destination endpoint] = "anon-URI?id={uuid}", then 
> > > > [destination endpoint] <> [reply endpoint][address] (which was 
> > > > simple, unornamented anon-URI), which contradicts premise 1.
> > > > 
> > > > Does that make sense? If so, then I think you would need to set 
> > > > [reply endpoint] to none, explicitly, to avoid that clash (given 
> > > > RM's current approach). But this causes
> > > > 
> > > > 4. The WS-A processor that sent MakeConnection to get very 
confused.
> > > > It wasn't expecting anything but an HTTP 200 series by way of a 
> > > > response, but is about to get a full-scale SOAP message bounding 
back.
> > > > 
> > > > +++
> > > > 
> > > > Further thoughts, which continue, in my mind, to question the 
> > > > current RM approach, but which may ease the WSA W problem.
> > > > 
> > > > a) You could have defined an extension element in the [reply 
> > > > endpoint] for the UUID.
> > > > 
> > > > b) Or, you could have chosen to send the UUID in the body element.
> > > > 
> > > > c) In either case, this could team up with setting [reply 
> > > endpoint] to anon. 
> > > > 
> > > > d) As in 3. above, you shouldn't then set response [destination 
> > > > endpoint] to anon?id={uuid}.
> > > > 
> > > > e) So, you need to set [reply endpoint] to anon, and set 
> > > > [destination endpoint][address] to anon.
> > > > 
> > > > f) which begs the question, where does the UUID go?
> > > > 
> > > > g)  If you passed an extension element UUID, or a UUID in the body 

> > > > element, and then passed it back as an extension element in the 
anon
> > > > EPR that should be OK, because you have followed the rules for 
reply
> > > > formulation with respect to the [destination endpoint][address]
> > > > /[reference parameters]. The fact you have chosen to put an 
> > > > extension element in the response is WS-A 3.3/3.4 legal, as I read 

> > > > it. That's a higher-layer behaviour that does not contradict WS-A 
> > > > base behaviour, which is constrained.
> > > > 
> > > > +++
> > > > 
> > > > Why is g) not viable in your view? The processors that need to 
> > > > understand the body/extension UUID element are the RM senders and 
> > > > responders (not the WS-A processors, which passively pass on the 
> > > > UUID to the RM receiver of MakeConnection, and pass on the 
extension
> > > > element to the RM receiver of the response). 
> > > > 
> > > > In other words, the awareness of RM-ness that is demanded in 
> > > > formulating MakeConnection, and in replying to it, resides in the 
> > > > same place, and at the same level, as in the current (CD) 
solution.
> > > > 
> > > > The difference being: that the MakeConnection is now a regular 
> > > > [reply endpoint] = anon. At which point special WSAW rules are
> not needed.
> > > > 
> > > > I don't see any lesser or greater problem with intermediaries, 
> > > > onward transmission etc than would apply with the current 
solution, 
> > > > if that is a concern. On this point, I think I may be missing 
> > > > something, or misunderstanding your area of concern?
> > > > 
> > > > So, to summarize:
> > > > 
> > > > 1. asimple-non out, special, ornamented-anon back is a problem.
> > > > 2. none out, anon back is a problem.
> > > > 3. extension element UUID out, extension element UUID back, is no 
> > > > different, in layer terms, than body UUID out, ornamented address 
> > > > back, i.e. is not a problem.
> > > > 4. anon out means no problem with anon = required.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > * * *
> > > > 
> > > > My last point was indeed completely beside the point of your issue 
:
> > > > -) -- it is an independent issue about WSAW, and a limitation that 

> > > > the proposed syntax seems to impose by applying the flag across 
all 
> > > > "response endpoints". 
> > > > 
> > > > Alastair
> > > > 
> > > > Doug Davis wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Alastair, 
> > > >   We did consider adding some extra metadata to the EPR (outside 
of 
> > > > the wsa:Address and ref-p's), but there's a problem - this 
metadata 
> > > > is not copied over into the response message - just the 
wsa:Address 
> > > > and ref-p's are.  This means that any data placed elsewhere in the 

> > > > EPR is lost once the message is serialized.  So unless we assume 
the
> > > > impl can hold on to the original EPR for the entire message path 
> > > > (which we can't in distributed systems), the identity part must be 

> > > > in either the address or ref-p's.  And, as you said, ref-p's 
aren't 
> > > > good for this. 
> > > > 
> > > >   What's interesting about your anon?unique-id example is that 
that 
> > > > solution might work very nicely (we talked about this in the past) 
-
> > > > but as you said it would require WSA to say anon URIs 'start 
> > > > with...' - and WSA is closed :-( 
> > > > 
> > > >   I got a bit lost on your last point - it almost sounded like a 
> > > > complaint about the current WSA WSDL spec instead of my issue - or 

> > > > did I not follow it? 
> > > > 
> > > >   I noticed that on the agenda for tomorrow's WSA call (I think 
its 
> > > > tomorrow) is a CR issue that mentioned how this wording in the 
WSDL 
> > > > spec prevents the use of "none".  I can't help but think that both 

> > > > issues (mine and the other CR issue) would be solved nicely if the 

> > > > wording were turned around a bit and said something about how this 

> > > > flag indicates whether or not the endpoint supports addressable 
> > > > endpoints in the response EPRs.  Not sure of the exact wording, 
but 
> > > > if instead of taking about specific URIs (like anon and none) it 
> > > > talked about whether the endpoint supported the notion of creating 

> > > > it own connections to the EPR then it wouldn't need to get into 
the 
> > > > business of listing all of the URIs that are valid.  And I think 
it 
> > > > would relay the exact same information. 
> > > > 
> > > > thanks 
> > > > -Doug 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com> 
> > > > 08/04/2006 10:57 AM 
> > > > 
> > > > To 
> > > > 
> > > > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
> > > > 
> > > > cc 
> > > > 
> > > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, 
> > > > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org, abbieb@nortel.com, aclark@novell.com, 
> > > > akira.tanaka.pr@hitachi.com, aleyfer@actional.com, 
anash@reactivity.com
> , 
> > > > andreas.bjarlestam@ericsson.com, anil.edakkunni@soa.com, anil.
> > > john@jhuapl.edu
> > > > , Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com, Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > > > asakala@iona.com, ash@rainingdata.com, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com, 
> > > > asirveda@microsoft.com, atarashi@sv.nec-labs.com, 
atmanes@gmail.com, 
> > > > audet@nortel.com, barreto@adobe.com, bhakti.mehta@sun.com, blake.
> > > > dournaee@intel.com, bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com, bob.
> sunday@pwgsc.gc.ca
> > , 
> > > > b.eckenfels@seeburger.de, carolina.canales@ericsson.com, 
> > chamikara@wso2.com
> > > , 
> > > > chappell@sonicsoftware.com, Charles Levay/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > > > chouthri@sv.nec-labs.com, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > > > Christopher.Kurt@microsoft.com, chris.hipson@bt.com, "'von 
> > Riegen, Claus'" 
> > > > <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>, coevans@microsoft.com, 
> > cunningham_david@bah.com
> > > , 
> > > > dan@actional.com, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@sap.com>, 
> > > > dconnelly@openapplications.org, Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, 
> > > > dkmin@konkuk.ac.kr, dleshc@tibco.com, dmoberg@us.axway.com, 
> > > dnickull@adobe.com
> > > > , "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, doug.bunting@sun.com, 
> > > > eisaku.nishiyama.dd@hitachi.com, email@cbvenkat.net, eoghan.
> glynn@iona.com
> > , 
> > > > Eric.Newcomer@iona.com, eric.rajkovic@oracle.com, eric.
> > > > wells@hitachisoftware.com, ganga.sah@oracle.com, 
gatfora@uk.ibm.com, 
> > > > gboschi@sonicsoftware.com, gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com, "'Gilbert 
Pilz'" 
> > > > <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, girish.juneja@intel.com, 
gregcarp@microsoft.com
> , 
> > > > greg.pavlik@oracle.com, hbenmalek@us.fujitsu.com, 
heiko.braun@jboss.com
> , 
> > > > ian.c.jones@bt.com, ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com, 
james.speer@capgemini.com, 
> > > > jamie.clark@oasis-open.org, jdurand@us.fujitsu.com, jeff.
> > > > mischkinsky@oracle.com, jekanaya@cs.indiana.edu, 
Jiri.Tejkl@systinet.com
> , 
> > > > jjchoe@tmax.co.kr, jkchoi@methodi.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com, 
joeri.
> > > > van_cleynenbreugel@alcatel.be, john.gotze@oasis-open.org, john.
> > > kemp@nokia.com
> > > > , joseph.2.waller@bt.com, junghc@nca.or.kr, jypyon@nca.or.kr, k-
> > > > seki@da.jp.nec.com, kcyee@cecid.hku.hk, kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com, 
> > > > lburch@novell.com, lily.liu@webmethods.com, "'Lei Jin'" 
<ljin@bea.com>, 
> > > > machi@nca.or.kr, "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@jboss.com>, 
> > > > "'Schenecker, Mark'" <mark.schenecker@sap.com>, "'de Boer, 
Martijn'" 
> > > > <martijn.de.boer@sap.com>, "'Raepple, Martin'" 
<martin.raepple@sap.com>
> , 
> > > > mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org, matsuki.yoshino.pw@hitachi.com, 
> > > mckierna@uk.ibm.com
> > > > , mgoodner@microsoft.com, mhb@itst.dk, "'Bechauf, Michael'" 
> > > > <michael.bechauf@sap.com>, mike.grogan@sun.com, 
millwood@uk.ibm.com, 
> > > > mlovett@uk.ibm.com, mlyons@layer7tech.com, mschenecker@e2open.com, 

> > > > mwang@tibco.com, nickr@enosis.com, nilo.mitra@ericsson.com, 
> > > > nobuyuki.yamamoto.vw@hitachi.com, Ondrej.Hrebicek@microsoft.com, 
> > > paul@wso2.com
> > > > , pauld@mitre.org, paul.cotton@microsoft.com, 
paul.knight@nortel.com, 
> > > > peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk, peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com, pete.
> wenzel@sun.com
> > , 
> > > > prateek.mishra@oracle.com, pyendluri@webmethods.com, Richard 
> > > > Salz/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, robin@oasis-open.org, 
sada@jp.fujitsu.com,
> > > > "'Patil, Sanjay'" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>, sanka@wso2.com, 
> > scayron@acord.org
> > > > , Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, shengsong.ni@oracle.com, 
> > > > shivajee@tibco.com, srcarter@novell.com, stefanba@microsoft.com, 
> > > > "'Rossmanith, Stefan'" <stefan.rossmanith@sap.com>, "'Winkler, 
Steve'" 
> > > > <steve.winkler@sap.com>, sumit.gupta@oracle.com, 
tboubez@layer7tech.com
> , 
> > > > tejeswar.das@iona.com, thomas.erl@soasystems.com, thomas.t.
> bui@boeing.com
> > , 
> > > > timothy@drummondgroup.com, toby.considine@unc.edu, 
tom@coastin.com, 
> > > > "'Yalcinalp, Umit'" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>, 
vfurman@webmethods.com
> > > > , "'Shipkowitz, Vicki'" <vicki.shipkowitz@sap.com>, 
> vikas@sonoasystems.com
> > > > , "'Videlov, Vladimir'" <vladimir.videlov@sap.com>, Martin Chapman 

> > > > <martin.chapman@oracle.com> 
> > > > 
> > > > Subject 
> > > > 
> > > > Re: Comment on WSDL spec: use of Anonymous Element 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Hi Doug,
> > > > 
> > > > Comments interspersed:
> > > > 
> > > > Doug Davis wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Alastair, 
> > > >  There are a couple of different things at play here. First, sorry 

> > > > about the long cc-list but the wsrx mailing list still doesn't 
> > > > appear to work so I need to include the entire wsrx team manually 
:-( 
> > > > I thought my mail client was going to expire when I just did 
> "reply all". 
> > > > 
> > > > In a non-anonymous world the wsa:Address field represents both the 

> > > > fact that the destination can access connections and it identifies 

> > > > the party.  And I think that makes sense.  There is no reason to 
not
> > > > have a single URI do that (let's not get into the 'identity' issue 

> > > > w.r.t. ref-p's  :-).   So, if we then switch over to the anonymous 

> > > > case, IMO, I don't believe the implementation should need to 
change 
> > > > w.r.t. the purpose of this URI. 
> > > > Here's what I don't understand. In the non-anon case an EPR 
(address
> > > > + stuff) is used to target. In the anon case, so far as I can 
tell, 
> > > > there is nothing in WS-A to stop the same "full EPR" (address + 
> > > > stuff) be 
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2006 13:46:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:14 GMT