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

Re: CR33: Describing RM using WSDL?

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2006 20:49:19 -0400
To: "Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
Cc: "Alastair Green" <alastair.green@choreology.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFBEBA855F.C2705C9C-ON852571CA.0002E452-852571CA.000482F7@us.ibm.com>
The interaction we're talking about _is_ an application-level interaction. 
 Using the classic
StockQuote example, when the GetStockQuote request flows there are three 
possible
values for wsa:ReplyTo that are of interest to this conversation:
1 - addressable URI (e.g. ibm.com)
2 - WSA's anonymous
3 - RM's anonymous

Obviously 1 is the normal async response case.  Its the 2nd and 3rd cases 
that get a
bit more interesting.  If the wsaw:Anonymous is set to 'required' in the 
WSDL then it would
preclude the use of RM's anonymous on the GetStockQuote request message 
even 
though its use is consistent with WSA's anonymous, so this would mean only 
'2' is allowed. 

Not being involved in the history behind the wsaw:Anonymous flag I'm 
guessing that
its intended to let the client know whether or not the server will support 
sending back
async responses or whether the client is limited to receiving them thru 
the transport
back-channel.  RM's anonymous fits this pattern - which is why we have 
some concern
with this flag if it only allows WSA's anonymous URI, and isn't extensible 
to support
consistent (but different) URIs.

RM's policy assertions do compose with WSA's but they only deal with 
whether or
not RM is required/optional - they do not say anything about the use of 
anonymous.

thanks,
-Doug


"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote on 08/13/2006 07:36:05 PM:

> I don't understand how wsaw:Anonymous (which is used for describing
> application-level interactions) and RM's use of a pseudo-anonymous URI
> would interact.  Are you trying to describe the RM protocol in WSDL?
> Don't you have an RM policy assertion for that?
> 
> It would be unfortunate if wsaw:Anonymous and the RM policy weren't
> composable.  This issue implies they aren't, that the application-level
> interactions aren't independent from protocol-level interactions, and
> that there may be constraints to the allowable values of wsaw:Anonymous
> when RM is engaged, which if true seems like a design flaw that can't be
> fixed simply by twiddling with the definition of wsaw:Anonymous.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Freund
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:36 PM
> > To: Alastair Green; Doug Davis
> > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
> > Subject: RE: CR33
> > 
> > 
> > Alastair,
> > The issue may be viewed at
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/#cr33
> > Thanks for joining.
> > -bob
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:20 PM
> > > To: Doug Davis
> > > Cc: Bob Freund; Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
> > > Subject: Re: CR33
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > If CR33 is something to do with the current RM-inspired discussion
> > then
> > > I would very much like to take part. Thank you for inviting me.
> > >
> > > I'm deep in the bowels of correspondence. Can you let me know what
> > CR33
> > > says, how do I find a link to it, etc? I am not familiar with your
> > > process, I'm afraid, and I haven't read the full gamut of mails from
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Yrs,
> > >
> > > Alastair
> > >
> > > Doug Davis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Bob - I'll be there.
> > > > -Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>*
> > > >
> > > > 08/09/2006 01:28 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To
> > > >    Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "Alastair Green"
> > > > <alastair.green@choreology.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> > > > cc
> > > >    "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > > > Subject
> > > >    CR33
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alastair, Chris, and Doug,
> > > >
> > > > The agenda for next Monday's meeting of ws-addressing will feature
> > > > CR33 which was originated by Doug Davis.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to invite you to participate in the call to express
> > your
> > > > points of view and participate in the resolution of this issue.
> > > >
> > > > The call is scheduled for 4:00p-6:00 US Eastern time.
> > > >
> > > > The conference call bridge is via Zakim +1-617-761-6200 access
> code
> > > > 2337(addr)
> > > > Irc is available at irc.w3.org, port 6665, and the channel for the
> > Web
> > > > Services Working Group is _#ws-addr_
> > <irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#ws-addr>.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that through your participation we can achieve a consensus
> > > > resolution to this issue quickly. Please let me know if you plan
> to
> > > > participate.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -bob
> 
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 00:51:00 GMT

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