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

RE: Proposal for CR33

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:26:59 -0400
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF856274ED.F69B0609-ON852571DA.00642A98-852571DA.00655976@us.ibm.com>
What you're basically advocating is the removal of the wsaw:Anonymous 
element when RM's URI template is used - while to someone who would only 
use "optional" in there anyway wouldn't really care, I suspect people who 
want to use "required" might have a problem with that.  A WSA-only client 
may want to see wsaw:Anonymous=required to know that it must use WSA's 
anon.  While a RM+WSA client seeing that same WSDL element would correctly 
interpret it to mean that RM's anon is prohibited.  Given that WSA core 
spec allows for other specs to define anonymous-like URIs, it makes sense 
to me that this WSDL element should allow for those situations.

To me this element should talk about the asynchronous support of the 
server.  However, if the WG really wants to keep it focused on the 
specific URI itself then maybe another option would be to add another 
value for this wsdl element.  Something that means "anon-like required" - 
so its similar to "required" but allows for other possible values as long 
as they are non-addressable.  This gives people to ability to really be 
picky and just allow WSA's anon, but also support others.   (just 
brainstorming here)


"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
08/30/2006 02:12 PM

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

RE: Proposal for CR33

Sorry I missed last week?s call, but I still haven?t seen enough evidence, 
including in last week?s minutes, proving that RM?s anonymous template 
design is the least of all evils to be wholeheartedly in favor of such a 
proposal.  An EPR with an anonymous URI (identifying the address of the 
service using a standard mechanism that works well with wsaw:Anonymous) 
plus a reference parameter (conveying other information to the endpoint 
which it can use to help establish subsequent connections) seems to 
accomplish all the desired goals.
I also recognize stability of the WS-RM and WS-A WSDL binding specs is 
important, but something has to give here, perhaps the simplest path 
forward is to add the simple advice to WS-RM not to combine RM with 
wsaw:Anonymous=?required? because of the unintended side effect of 
prohibiting RM?s pseudo-anonymous address.  The resulting loss of 
descriptive capability doesn?t seem catastrophic.

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:54 AM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposal for CR33

Yup - the entire naming issue is a problem.  Obviously the current name 
"Anonymous" doesn't 
convey what this CR is trying get to.  And as you and other have pointed 
out perhaps "Connection" 
isn't right either.  I think it might be useful to first figure out what 
this WSDL element is trying to 
define and then pick a name. 

So, let's start with this.... 

If the wsaw:ZZZ element were defined with the proper terminology to say 
that this element 
is trying to convey whether or not the endpoint supports the notion of 
sending responses 
(either normal or faults) asynchronously - would that be something people 

(I'm not asking for people to agree to the term 'asynchronously' but 
rather to just the 
idea that everyone knows what it is supposed to mean.  If we can get 
agreement to 
on the idea then we can move on to finding the right wording.) 


"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> 
08/30/2006 12:32 PM 

"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>, 
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
RE: Proposal for CR33


Still digesting this, but one comment is simply on the terminology and
names.  The concept (e.g. the property name) is termed "addressable
response endpoint" yet the syntax is named wsa:NewConnection.  Perhaps a
unified name like wsaw:Addressable would be more appropriate.  Although
"addressable" as a term does seem to include the anonymous URI so maybe
that doesn't work either...

I'm also concerned the preoccupation with "new connection" is
SOAP-Binding specific.  The WS-A Core doesn't mention connections at all
when defining the anonymous URI.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:10 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Cc: Doug Davis
> Subject: Proposal for CR33
> Dug and I took an action during this week's call to send out a
> for CR33 [1]. Word version of the proposal is attached. It is a marked
> up version of section 3.2 [2] of the WS-Addressing 1.0 -- WSDL Binding
> spec. PDF (diffed and non-diffed  versions) are also attached.
> -Anish
> --
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr33
> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#anonelement
Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 18:27:17 UTC

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