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: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:25:12 -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>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFDE67D6D4.9AAFDC0B-ON852571CA.0052176E-852571CA.0054B4BF@us.ibm.com>
Yes, thank goodness for the 'SHOULD' :-)  although, it would seem a bit 
odd for WSA to preclude some other URI from being defined that means 
something other than 'open a connection' - especially when 'none' seems to 
do exactly that - thus violating that rule. And I would point out the Note 
at the end of the paragraph you pointed me to: 
  Note that other specifications MAY define special URIs that have other 
  behaviors (similar to the anonymous URI).
which is exactly what RM does - so how does this last sentence coexist 
with the wsaw:Anon marker?  The sentence seems to imply some 
extensibility, but the marker (as currently worded) removes it. And this 
is our concern with the marker - not that RM wants to reuse it - RM 
actually doesn't use it at all.  But we want to make sure that this marker 
doesn't unnecessarily prevent us from using an extensibility point in the 
core WSA spec.

IMO, if the wsaw:Anon text were reworded in a similar way to how that 
paragraph was worded (something akin to: WSA defines the anon URI but 
other specs can define their own too, and this flag indicates whether or 
not an anon-like URI must be used) then I think the WSDL spec would be 
consistent with the core spec and keep the extensibility point intact. 
Even simply changing the MUST to a SHOULD would do it too - as Chris 
pointed out.

thanks
-Doug


public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 08/14/2006 10:29:46 AM:

> OK, so the problem is in [1] which conflates ?non-anonymous? with 
> ?addressable?.  That implies that any URI other than the WS-A 
> anonymous SHOULD NOT use the back-channel.  Fortunately (if the RM-
> style-anonymous is a good idea, which I still am not sure of), the 
> SHOULD is there, which may give us wiggle room.
> 
> But since RM hasn?t reused our anonymous URI, I don?t see why you 
> want to reuse our wsaw:Anonymous marker.  Why doesn?t RM-anonymous 
> have its own marker, which may or may not be composable with all 
> values of wsaw:Anonymous?  (Composition of a policy expression with 
> a WSDL extension seems like it might be tricky too.)
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/#nonanonaddress
> 
> 
> 
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:49 PM
> To: Jonathan Marsh
> Cc: Alastair Green; Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
> Subject: Re: CR33: Describing RM using WSDL?
> 
> 
> 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 
withwhether 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 15:25:56 GMT

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