- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2006 08:45:19 -0500
- To: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Message-ID: <OF7B8AFA0C.442E7336-ON852571C5.004A02EB-852571C5.004B878D@us.ibm.com>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">+1</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Christopher Ferris<br>
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy<br>
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com<br>
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440<br>
phone: +1 508 377 9295</font>
<br>
<br><tt><font size=2>Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM wrote on 08/08/2006 02:47:34
PM:<br>
<br>
> I believe the value of the replyTo on the MakeConnection is <br>
> irrelevant since the</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> message that is sent on the back-channel is not
a response to the MC anyway.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> So, setting it to anon, none or even www.ibm.com
doesn't change what gets</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> put on the back-channel. The semantics
of MakeConnection are very clear - it</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> is _NOT_ asking for a message - is it creating
a connection and <br>
> identifying the</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> initiator of that connection - nothing more.</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> -Doug</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS </font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> 08/08/2006 10:06 AM</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> To</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com></font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> cc</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org,
<br>
> ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> Subject</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> Re: [ws-rx] Re: Comment on WSDL spec: use of Anonymous Element</font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> <br>
> <br>
> Alastair, <br>
> <br>
> Is this a long and drawn out manner of stating that when a message
<br>
> is a true oneway (e.g. no <br>
> response is expected) then the wsa:ReplyTo should be the WS-A none
<br>
> URI rather than <br>
> simply leaving it absent and hence falling trap to the "if not
<br>
> present, default to anon" gotcha? <br>
> <br>
> I guess I am not seeing an issue here, although I guess it would be
<br>
> fine if we recommended or required <br>
> that the MakeConnection wsa:ReplyTo MAP carry the WS-A none URI. <br>
> <br>
> Cheers, <br>
> <br>
> Christopher Ferris<br>
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy<br>
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com<br>
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440<br>
> phone: +1 508 377 9295 <br>
> <br>
> public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 08/08/2006 07:06:32 AM:<br>
> <br>
> > Doug, Paul --<br>
> > <br>
> > I'm going to try to address both your comments. if I can summarize
<br>
> > Paul's it was: what's the big deal about [reply endpoint] when
<br>
> > MakeConnection is "one-way"?. <br>
> > <br>
> > Given RX timescales you may want to treat these remarks as "early
<br>
> > public review".<br>
> > <br>
> > * * *<br>
> > <br>
> > Doug's message 1 is an application-level set-up call which <br>
> > establishes common understanding of the UUID. This type of message
<br>
> > is exemplified by that shown in the CD example Step 1, unless
I have<br>
> > completely misunderstood.<br>
> > <br>
> > In that example, a subscriber, who cannot listen, sends a subscribe
<br>
> > message to a publisher, saying something like "subscribe
me for <br>
> > topics A, B, C. The identity of this subscription request is
UUID <br>
> > X". Thereafter, the publisher knows that X equals "subscription
for <br>
> > topics A, B, C".<br>
> > <br>
> > Assertion 1 (please correct me if I am wrong): The format, content
<br>
> > etc of this type of message (and its manner of transmission)
are <br>
> > entirely application-specific. It may or may not require an <br>
> > acknowledgement. It could be sent by carrier pigeon, or by fax.
The <br>
> > subscribe message, if sent as SOAP-with-Addressing, might receive
a <br>
> > reply, or might not receive a reply, and if it did, it might
receive<br>
> > it anon or addressable. There are no RM rules that apply to this
<br>
> > message. There are only application rules. It cannot do its job
<br>
> > usefully unless it passes the UUID: that is all we can say.<br>
> > <br>
> > Assertion 2. At present there is an RM rule which says: "the
<br>
> > mutually understood UUID must be reflected in the [destination
<br>
> > endpoint] according to an RM URI scheme". There are no RM
rules to <br>
> > say whether the connection UUID, during the course of establishing
<br>
> > mutual understanding, travels alone, embedded in a URI, in a
body <br>
> > element or a header element. These are all matters of bilateral
<br>
> > agreement at an app level between (in this case) the <br>
> > consumer/subscriber and the producer/publisher.<br>
> > <br>
> > [The example is potentially a bit misleading in this respect.
<br>
> > <br>
> > The use of the full "anon-URI?id={uuid}" value in the
<targetEPR/>, <br>
> > and the use of the element name "targetEPR" make one
think <br>
> > "addressing", when one would be better off thinking
"subscription <br>
> > identity" (at an app level). The example set-up message
would work <br>
> > perfectly well if it read:<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <!-- subscription details --> <br>
> > <SubscriptionIdentity>{uuid}</SubscriptionIdentity><br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > <br>
> > Btw, given that the use of MakeConnection requires a prior <br>
> > understanding between two parties of the connection identity,
there <br>
> > seems no reason why {uuid} has to be a UUID. It does need to
be <br>
> > bilaterally unambiguous.]<br>
> > <br>
> > * * *<br>
> > <br>
> > Message 2 is MakeConnection. If the subscriber sends a <br>
> > MakeConnection, specifying UUID X, then the publisher knows it
is <br>
> > dealing with traffic relating to subscription X, i.e. for topics
A, <br>
> > B and C. At an application level, we assume that the contract
<br>
> > thereafter is: start reliably communicating a stream of messages,
<br>
> > relating to topics A, B and C, therefore implying sequence creation
<br>
> > etc, until something causes the stream to close. <br>
> > <br>
> > So the subscriber will repeatedly send MakeConnection, citing
the <br>
> > UUID X, read the HTTP response, and handle the response as if
it <br>
> > were an inbound RM/RM-app message.<br>
> > <br>
> > The exchange that RM defines (rather than illustrates) is the
<br>
> > MakeConnection, back-call-on-the-connection one. It's this exchange
<br>
> > that I am discussing. MakeConnection is the message affected
by the <br>
> > WSAW anon=required discussion, as I see it.<br>
> > <br>
> > [While it is probably helpful for diagnostic reasons to repeat
the <br>
> > UUID back to the sender of MakeConnection in the [destination
<br>
> > endpoint], it is actually redundant, as the HTTP Response is
<br>
> > automatically and uniquely correlated with the HTTP Request.
This <br>
> > might lead one to the conclusion that the simple solution would
have<br>
> > been: send UUID on MakeConnection, and then respond to it on
the <br>
> > anonymous back-channel without reflection of UUID in any form
<br>
> > However, this would reduce the symmetry with the Sequence identified<br>
> > use of MakeConnection, see comments later]<br>
> > <br>
> > * * *<br>
> > <br>
> > There are two modes in which this exchange can work (reflecting
the <br>
> > joint proposal, as I understand it):<br>
> > <br>
> > a) Send response as part of a sequence that already exists<br>
> > b) Use response to create a new sequence, etc<br>
> > <br>
> > This is relevant to answering Paul F's question, relating to
the <br>
> > significance of ReplyTo.<br>
> > <br>
> > If there is a sequence, then the sequence Identifier is a <br>
> > correlation synonym for the UUID. The reply message may be sent
on <br>
> > the back-channel; it must carry the wsrm:Identifier (as a separate
<br>
> > header element), it need not carry the UUID.<br>
> > <br>
> > If there is no sequence, then the reply message must carry or
imply <br>
> > the UUID. (I'm going to assume that carrying the UUID is better
than<br>
> > implying it.) The question is how?<br>
> > <br>
> > Looking at these two cases, it is striking that both <br>
> > <br>
> > a) require a response on the back-channel,<br>
> > b) need to carry an identifier (one of the sequence, one of the
<br>
> > "connection"/"session")<br>
> > <br>
> > Doug's comment that there is no wsa:ReplyTo on the MakeConnection,
<br>
> > that it is "one way", is relevant here. In fact there
is no such <br>
> > thing (in the XML infoset) as a non-existent [reply endpoint].
If <br>
> > wsa:ReplyTo is absent, then it is inferred to be the anon-URI.
The <br>
> > only way you can stop that inference is to set the [reply endpoint]
<br>
> > to none or to a "real address". I don't think you want
to do either <br>
> > of those things, in this context.<br>
> > <br>
> > With these points in mind, I think it is worth looking again
at my <br>
> > previous postings. <br>
> > <br>
> > The orthodox way of saying "respond on the back-channel"
is setting <br>
> > [reply endpoint] to anon. This can be done explicitly or by <br>
> > inference from absence.<br>
> > <br>
> > I think there has to be a good reason to invent a new way of
<br>
> > expressing this semantic. Doing so has repercussions (see the
<br>
> > original starting point of this thread, re WSA W anon/required).
The<br>
> > (very valuable) use case of MakeConnection does not require an
<br>
> > alternate mechnanism for stating the back channel semantic. <br>
> > <br>
> > We can illustrate all of this by placing three examples side
by side:<br>
> > <br>
> > * * *<br>
> > <br>
> > 1. Example using sequence Identifier: MakeConnection and reply
[asper CD 04]<br>
> > 2. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: MakeConnection
<br>
> > and reply [as it could be, simplified]<br>
> > 3. Example using current Address [as per CD 04]<br>
> > <br>
> > 1a. Example using sequence Identifier: MakeConnection<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To><br>
> > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: <br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous<br>
> > </wsa:Address><br>
> > </wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > --><br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <wsrm:MakeConnection>
<br>
> > <wsrm:Identifier>http://Business456.<br>
> > com/SubscribeTopics/Sequence/7456-3278</wsrm:Identifier><br>
> > </wsrm:MakeConnection> <br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > 1b. Example using sequence Identifier: reply to MakeConnection<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo><br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo><wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService<br>
> > </wsa:Address></wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://example.com/subscriptionService/publish<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsrm:Sequence><br>
> > <wsrm:Identifier>http://Business456.<br>
> > com/SubscribeTopics/Sequence/7456-3278</wsrm:Identifier><br>
> > <wsrm:MessageNumber>1</wsrm:MessageNumber><br>
> > </wsrm:Sequence><br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <!-- Publication re A, B or C
--><br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > 2a. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: MakeConnection<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To><br>
> > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: <br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous<br>
> > </wsa:Address><br>
> > </wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > --><br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <wsrm:MakeConnection>
<br>
> > <wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier>http://Business456.com/<br>
> > SubscribeTopics/Stream/7457</wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier><br>
> > </wsrm:MakeConnection> <br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > 2b. Example using hypothetical connection identifier: reply to
<br>
> > MakeConnection (CreateSequence)<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open-<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/CreateSequence<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > <wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier><br>
> > http://Business456.com/SubscribeTopics/Stream/7457<br>
> > </wsrm:ConnectionIdentifier>
<br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <wsrm:CreateSequence><br>
> > <wsrm:AcksTo><br>
> > <wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService<br>
> > </wsa:Address><br>
> > </wsrm:AcksTo><br>
> > </wsrm:CreateSequence><br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > 3a. Example using wsrm:Address: MakeConnection<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/MakeConnection<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsa:To>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:To><br>
> > <!-- absent wsa:ReplyTo is equivalent to: <br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > <wsa:Address>http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous<br>
> > </wsa:Address><br>
> > </wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > --><br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <wsrm:MakeConnection>
<br>
> > <wsrm:Address><br>
> > http://docs.oasis-open.<br>
> > org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000<br>
> > </wsrm:Address><br>
> > </wsrm:MakeConnection> <br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > 3b. Example using wsrm:Address: reply to MakeConnection (CreateSequence)<br>
> > <br>
> > <S:Envelope xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"<br>
> > xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200608"<br>
> > xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing"><br>
> > <S:Header><br>
> > <wsa:MessageID>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/71e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cfcbc9e</wsa:MessageID><br>
> > <wsa:RelatesTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService/<br>
> > guid/61e0654e-5ce8-477b-bb9d-34f05cdcbc9e</wsa:RelatesTo><br>
> > <wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open-<br>
> org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/CreateSequence<br>
> > </wsa:Action><br>
> > <wsa:To><br>
> > <br>
> > <!-- I believe this is WS-A illegal: reply To must equal request
<br>
> > ReplyTo/Address. --> <br>
> > <br>
> > http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsrx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?<br>
> > id=550e8400-e29b-11d4-a716-446655440000<br>
> > </wsa:To><br>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo>http://example.org/subscriptionService</wsa:ReplyTo><br>
> > </S:Header><br>
> > <S:Body><br>
> > <wsrm:CreateSequence><br>
> > <wsrm:AcksTo><br>
> > <wsa:Address>http://example.org/subscriptionService<br>
> > </wsa:Address><br>
> > </wsrm:AcksTo><br>
> > </wsrm:CreateSequence><br>
> > </S:Body><br>
> > </S:Envelope><br>
> > <br>
> > Yours,<br>
> > <br>
> > Alastair<br>
> > <br>
> > Doug Davis wrote: <br>
> > <br>
> > Alastair, <br>
> > I think you're mixing up the messages a bit. There
are two messages <br>
> > at play: <br>
> > 1 - the message containing the EPR to send subsequent messages
to. <br>
> > In some cases this message will have the EPR in
its wsa:ReplyTo <br>
> > header, but it could also be placed someplace else
depending <br>
> > on its use. And it is this EPR that needs
to be tagged as the <br>
> > polling one (ie. it has the RM anon URI). <br>
> > This message will contain application specific
data in the Body <br>
> > so your suggestion of placing some UUID in there
will not work. <br>
> > This gets back to the necessity to keep all info
about where to <br>
> > send messages encapsulated into whatever EPR we
want to be tagged <br>
> > as the polling one. <br>
> > <br>
> > 2 - the MakeConnection message. <br>
> > This message does not have a wsa:ReplyTo, its a
one-way. This <br>
> > message does contain a Body which is the correlation
info used <br>
> > by the receiver of this message to find an appropriate
message <br>
> > to send back. So, basically the stuff in
the Body must match <br>
> > the EPR from message 1. And given that in
some cases the only <br>
> > thing remaining from the EPR in message 1 is the
serialized <br>
> > version of it, we must be able to find messages
based solely <br>
> > on what's in the outgoing message itself. Which
means the <br>
> > wsa:To field. Again, ref-p's are bad for
this purpose. :-) <br>
> > <br>
> > HTH <br>
> > <br>
> > thanks <br>
> > -Doug <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > <br>
> > Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com> wrote on
08/07/2006 <br>
> > 02:02:55 PM:<br>
> > <br>
> > > Doug,<br>
> > > <br>
> > > I think I'm connecting, if you'll pardon the pun. <br>
> > > <br>
> > > 1. As I read WS-A, the [destination endpoint][address] must
be set <br>
> > > to [reply endpoint][address] for a reply.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 2. If [reply endpoint] is omitted (as per the CD example),
then <br>
> > > [reply endpoint] = anon, by default.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 3. If [destination endpoint] = "anon-URI?id={uuid}",
then <br>
> > > [destination endpoint] <> [reply endpoint][address]
(which was <br>
> > > simple, unornamented anon-URI), which contradicts premise
1.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Does that make sense? If so, then I think you would need
to set <br>
> > > [reply endpoint] to none, explicitly, to avoid that clash
(given <br>
> > > RM's current approach). But this causes<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 4. The WS-A processor that sent MakeConnection to get very
confused.<br>
> > > It wasn't expecting anything but an HTTP 200 series by way
of a <br>
> > > response, but is about to get a full-scale SOAP message
bounding back.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > +++<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Further thoughts, which continue, in my mind, to question
the <br>
> > > current RM approach, but which may ease the WSA W problem.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > a) You could have defined an extension element in the [reply
<br>
> > > endpoint] for the UUID.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > b) Or, you could have chosen to send the UUID in the body
element.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > c) In either case, this could team up with setting [reply
<br>
> > endpoint] to anon. <br>
> > > <br>
> > > d) As in 3. above, you shouldn't then set response [destination
<br>
> > > endpoint] to anon?id={uuid}.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > e) So, you need to set [reply endpoint] to anon, and set
<br>
> > > [destination endpoint][address] to anon.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > f) which begs the question, where does the UUID go?<br>
> > > <br>
> > > g) If you passed an extension element UUID, or a UUID
in the body <br>
> > > element, and then passed it back as an extension element
in the anon<br>
> > > EPR that should be OK, because you have followed the rules
for reply<br>
> > > formulation with respect to the [destination endpoint][address]<br>
> > > /[reference parameters]. The fact you have chosen to put
an <br>
> > > extension element in the response is WS-A 3.3/3.4 legal,
as I read <br>
> > > it. That's a higher-layer behaviour that does not contradict
WS-A <br>
> > > base behaviour, which is constrained.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > +++<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Why is g) not viable in your view? The processors that need
to <br>
> > > understand the body/extension UUID element are the RM senders
and <br>
> > > responders (not the WS-A processors, which passively pass
on the <br>
> > > UUID to the RM receiver of MakeConnection, and pass on the
extension<br>
> > > element to the RM receiver of the response). <br>
> > > <br>
> > > In other words, the awareness of RM-ness that is demanded
in <br>
> > > formulating MakeConnection, and in replying to it, resides
in the <br>
> > > same place, and at the same level, as in the current (CD)
solution.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > The difference being: that the MakeConnection is now a regular
<br>
> > > [reply endpoint] = anon. At which point special WSAW rules
are not needed.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > I don't see any lesser or greater problem with intermediaries,
<br>
> > > onward transmission etc than would apply with the current
solution, <br>
> > > if that is a concern. On this point, I think I may be missing
<br>
> > > something, or misunderstanding your area of concern?<br>
> > > <br>
> > > So, to summarize:<br>
> > > <br>
> > > 1. asimple-non out, special, ornamented-anon back is a problem.<br>
> > > 2. none out, anon back is a problem.<br>
> > > 3. extension element UUID out, extension element UUID back,
is no <br>
> > > different, in layer terms, than body UUID out, ornamented
address <br>
> > > back, i.e. is not a problem.<br>
> > > 4. anon out means no problem with anon = required.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > * * *<br>
> > > <br>
> > > My last point was indeed completely beside the point of
your issue :<br>
> > > -) -- it is an independent issue about WSAW, and a limitation
that <br>
> > > the proposed syntax seems to impose by applying the flag
across all <br>
> > > "response endpoints". <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Alastair<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Doug Davis wrote: <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Alastair, <br>
> > > We did consider adding some extra metadata to the
EPR (outside of <br>
> > > the wsa:Address and ref-p's), but there's a problem - this
metadata <br>
> > > is not copied over into the response message - just the
wsa:Address <br>
> > > and ref-p's are. This means that any data placed elsewhere
in the <br>
> > > EPR is lost once the message is serialized. So unless
we assume the<br>
> > > impl can hold on to the original EPR for the entire message
path <br>
> > > (which we can't in distributed systems), the identity part
must be <br>
> > > in either the address or ref-p's. And, as you said,
ref-p's aren't <br>
> > > good for this. <br>
> > > <br>
> > > What's interesting about your anon?unique-id example
is that that <br>
> > > solution might work very nicely (we talked about this in
the past) -<br>
> > > but as you said it would require WSA to say anon URIs 'start
<br>
> > > with...' - and WSA is closed :-( <br>
> > > <br>
> > > I got a bit lost on your last point - it almost sounded
like a <br>
> > > complaint about the current WSA WSDL spec instead of my
issue - or <br>
> > > did I not follow it? <br>
> > > <br>
> > > I noticed that on the agenda for tomorrow's WSA call
(I think its <br>
> > > tomorrow) is a CR issue that mentioned how this wording
in the WSDL <br>
> > > spec prevents the use of "none". I can't
help but think that both <br>
> > > issues (mine and the other CR issue) would be solved nicely
if the <br>
> > > wording were turned around a bit and said something about
how this <br>
> > > flag indicates whether or not the endpoint supports addressable
<br>
> > > endpoints in the response EPRs. Not sure of the exact
wording, but <br>
> > > if instead of taking about specific URIs (like anon and
none) it <br>
> > > talked about whether the endpoint supported the notion of
creating <br>
> > > it own connections to the EPR then it wouldn't need to get
into the <br>
> > > business of listing all of the URIs that are valid. And
I think it <br>
> > > would relay the exact same information. <br>
> > > <br>
> > > thanks <br>
> > > -Doug <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com> <br>
> > > 08/04/2006 10:57 AM <br>
> > > <br>
> > > To <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS <br>
> > > <br>
> > > cc <br>
> > > <br>
> > > public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org,
<br>
> > > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org, abbieb@nortel.com, aclark@novell.com,
<br>
> > > akira.tanaka.pr@hitachi.com, aleyfer@actional.com, anash@reactivity.com,
<br>
> > > andreas.bjarlestam@ericsson.com, anil.edakkunni@soa.com,
anil.<br>
> > john@jhuapl.edu<br>
> > > , Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com, Anthony Nadalin/Austin/IBM@IBMUS,
<br>
> > > asakala@iona.com, ash@rainingdata.com, ashok.malhotra@oracle.com,
<br>
> > > asirveda@microsoft.com, atarashi@sv.nec-labs.com, atmanes@gmail.com,
<br>
> > > audet@nortel.com, barreto@adobe.com, bhakti.mehta@sun.com,
blake.<br>
> > > dournaee@intel.com, bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com, bob.<br>
> sunday@pwgsc.gc.ca, <br>
> > > b.eckenfels@seeburger.de, carolina.canales@ericsson.com,
<br>
> chamikara@wso2.com<br>
> > , <br>
> > > chappell@sonicsoftware.com, Charles Levay/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<br>
> > > chouthri@sv.nec-labs.com, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS,
<br>
> > > Christopher.Kurt@microsoft.com, chris.hipson@bt.com, "'von
<br>
> Riegen, Claus'" <br>
> > > <claus.von.riegen@sap.com>, coevans@microsoft.com,
<br>
> cunningham_david@bah.com<br>
> > , <br>
> > > dan@actional.com, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@sap.com>,
<br>
> > > dconnelly@openapplications.org, Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<br>
> > > dkmin@konkuk.ac.kr, dleshc@tibco.com, dmoberg@us.axway.com,
<br>
> > dnickull@adobe.com<br>
> > > , "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>,
doug.bunting@sun.com, <br>
> > > eisaku.nishiyama.dd@hitachi.com, email@cbvenkat.net, eoghan.<br>
> glynn@iona.com, <br>
> > > Eric.Newcomer@iona.com, eric.rajkovic@oracle.com, eric.<br>
> > > wells@hitachisoftware.com, ganga.sah@oracle.com, gatfora@uk.ibm.com,
<br>
> > > gboschi@sonicsoftware.com, gdaniels@sonicsoftware.com, "'Gilbert
Pilz'" <br>
> > > <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, girish.juneja@intel.com, gregcarp@microsoft.com,
<br>
> > > greg.pavlik@oracle.com, hbenmalek@us.fujitsu.com, heiko.braun@jboss.com,
<br>
> > > ian.c.jones@bt.com, ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com, james.speer@capgemini.com,
<br>
> > > jamie.clark@oasis-open.org, jdurand@us.fujitsu.com, jeff.<br>
> > > mischkinsky@oracle.com, jekanaya@cs.indiana.edu, Jiri.Tejkl@systinet.com,
<br>
> > > jjchoe@tmax.co.kr, jkchoi@methodi.com, jmarsh@microsoft.com,
joeri.<br>
> > > van_cleynenbreugel@alcatel.be, john.gotze@oasis-open.org,
john.<br>
> > kemp@nokia.com<br>
> > > , joseph.2.waller@bt.com, junghc@nca.or.kr, jypyon@nca.or.kr,
k-<br>
> > > seki@da.jp.nec.com, kcyee@cecid.hku.hk, kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com,
<br>
> > > lburch@novell.com, lily.liu@webmethods.com, "'Lei Jin'"
<ljin@bea.com>, <br>
> > > machi@nca.or.kr, "'Mark Little'" <mark.little@jboss.com>,
<br>
> > > "'Schenecker, Mark'" <mark.schenecker@sap.com>,
"'de Boer, Martijn'" <br>
> > > <martijn.de.boer@sap.com>, "'Raepple, Martin'"
<martin.raepple@sap.com>, <br>
> > > mary.mcrae@oasis-open.org, matsuki.yoshino.pw@hitachi.com,
<br>
> > mckierna@uk.ibm.com<br>
> > > , mgoodner@microsoft.com, mhb@itst.dk, "'Bechauf, Michael'"
<br>
> > > <michael.bechauf@sap.com>, mike.grogan@sun.com, millwood@uk.ibm.com,
<br>
> > > mlovett@uk.ibm.com, mlyons@layer7tech.com, mschenecker@e2open.com,
<br>
> > > mwang@tibco.com, nickr@enosis.com, nilo.mitra@ericsson.com,
<br>
> > > nobuyuki.yamamoto.vw@hitachi.com, Ondrej.Hrebicek@microsoft.com,
<br>
> > paul@wso2.com<br>
> > > , pauld@mitre.org, paul.cotton@microsoft.com, paul.knight@nortel.com,
<br>
> > > peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk, peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com, pete.<br>
> wenzel@sun.com, <br>
> > > prateek.mishra@oracle.com, pyendluri@webmethods.com, Richard
<br>
> > > Salz/Cambridge/IBM@IBMUS, robin@oasis-open.org, sada@jp.fujitsu.com,<br>
> > > "'Patil, Sanjay'" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>,
sanka@wso2.com, <br>
> scayron@acord.org<br>
> > > , Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM@IBMUS, shengsong.ni@oracle.com,
<br>
> > > shivajee@tibco.com, srcarter@novell.com, stefanba@microsoft.com,
<br>
> > > "'Rossmanith, Stefan'" <stefan.rossmanith@sap.com>,
"'Winkler, Steve'" <br>
> > > <steve.winkler@sap.com>, sumit.gupta@oracle.com, tboubez@layer7tech.com,
<br>
> > > tejeswar.das@iona.com, thomas.erl@soasystems.com, thomas.t.<br>
> bui@boeing.com, <br>
> > > timothy@drummondgroup.com, toby.considine@unc.edu, tom@coastin.com,
<br>
> > > "'Yalcinalp, Umit'" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>,
vfurman@webmethods.com<br>
> > > , "'Shipkowitz, Vicki'" <vicki.shipkowitz@sap.com>,
vikas@sonoasystems.com<br>
> > > , "'Videlov, Vladimir'" <vladimir.videlov@sap.com>,
Martin Chapman <br>
> > > <martin.chapman@oracle.com> <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Subject <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Re: Comment on WSDL spec: use of Anonymous Element <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Hi Doug,<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Comments interspersed:<br>
> > > <br>
> > > Doug Davis wrote: <br>
> > > <br>
> > > Alastair, <br>
> > > There are a couple of different things at play here.
First, sorry <br>
> > > about the long cc-list but the wsrx mailing list still doesn't
<br>
> > > appear to work so I need to include the entire wsrx team
manually :-( <br>
> > > I thought my mail client was going to expire when I just
did "reply all". <br>
> > > <br>
> > > In a non-anonymous world the wsa:Address field represents
both the <br>
> > > fact that the destination can access connections and it
identifies <br>
> > > the party. And I think that makes sense. There
is no reason to not<br>
> > > have a single URI do that (let's not get into the 'identity'
issue <br>
> > > w.r.t. ref-p's :-). So, if we then switch over
to the anonymous <br>
> > > case, IMO, I don't believe the implementation should need
to change </font></tt>
<br><tt><font size=2>> > > w.r.t. the purpose of this URI. <br>
> > > Here's what I don't understand. In the non-anon case an
EPR (address<br>
> > > + stuff) is used to target. In the anon case, so far as
I can tell, <br>
> > > there is nothing in WS-A to stop the same "full EPR"
(address + <br>
> > > stuff) being used to target the reply.<br>
> > > <br>
> > > If one pursues this, what you intuitively want is: callback
EPR = <br>
> > >
Received on Wednesday, 9 August 2006 13:46:42 UTC