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

Re: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)

From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:33:15 -0500
To: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-id: <43F0FB1B.3090604@tibco.com>

Francisco Curbera wrote:

>I meant to propose that my text go in Section 3.5 right before 3.5.1, as
>Jonathan suggests.
>
>
>As for the SOAP 1.2 and its abstract features, the problem we have now is
>that the transport (HTTP) lacks the concept of anonymous destination for a
>request message. This is is not going to change because SOAP 1.2 defined
>set of abstract concepts. Let's just be clear about it and be done with
>this issue (and CR18 as well).
>  
>
I thought the problem was that some implementations faulted when they
saw anonymous in [destination] for a request and some accepted such a
message.

We can solve this easily three different ways, as I said.  Either keep
the status quo, allow anonymous destination in requests and give it a
meaning, or disallow it.  Each of those is perfectly clear.  Stating
them in terms of HTTP only doesn't make them any clearer; it just splits
SOAP 1.2 request-response into two flavors (HTTP and everything else)
for no obvious gain.

>
>Paco
>
>
>
>                                                                                                                                  
>                      David Hull                                                                                                  
>                      <dmh@tibco.com>          To:       Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>                                    
>                                               cc:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, public-ws-addressing@w3.org,         
>                      02/13/2006 02:38          public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org                                               
>                      PM                       Subject:  Re: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)                                   
>                                                                                                                                  
>
>
>
>
>Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>      Dave,
>
>      Perhaps it’s just me, but the sense of what we’re trying to say gets
>      lost by the time you’re crafted it into a proposal.
>
>      3.5.1 looks accurate, but starts the reader on a treasure hunt
>      instead of directly giving them the answer to this question.  3.5.2
>      seems to apply restrictions to SOAP request-response beyond the
>      desired definition of the HTTP binding.
>
>      I prefer Paco’s formulation – directly state that for HTTP, anonymous
>      means no more and no less than the HTTP response.  I’d put his
>      proposed text directly into the (currently empty) 3.5.  And declare
>      victory.
>
>
>In that case, strike "and no less", which is just a new complication.  That
>leaves the semantics unchanged, and we can declare victory without firing a
>shot.  I would much rather declare victory this way.
>
>Special-casing HTTP for SOAP 1.2 is only victory if you abandon the idea
>that features and properties can apply across protocols.
>
>
>      From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [
>      mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
>      Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:08 PM
>      To: Francisco Curbera
>      Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>      Subject: Re: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)
>
>      Francisco Curbera wrote:
>      As I said in my earlier mail, this would be the text to include in
>      section
>      3.5:
>
>      "When the HTTP transport is in use, the anonymous URI is only used to
>      indicate the use of the HTTP reply channel so it can only appear as
>      the
>      value of the [destination] property in reply messages."
>
>      To be more concrete (insertions in italics):
>      3.5 Use of Anonymous Address in SOAP
>
>      3.5.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP
>
>      When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified
>      for the response endpoint then there is no change to the SOAP 1.1/
>      HTTP binding. The URI
>      "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be
>      specified
>      for the [destination] property of an HTTP message, except when
>      required
>      as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of the core.
>
>      3.5.2 SOAP 1.2
>
>      When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified
>      for the response endpoint and the request is the request part of a
>      SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref], then any response
>      MUST be the response part of the same SOAP request-response MEP [soap
>      1.2 adjuncts ref].  The URI
>      "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be
>      specified
>      for the [destination] property of any message in a SOAP
>      request-response
>      MEP, except when required as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of
>      the core.
>      This could be sharpened by saying the server/receiver MUST fault on
>      receiving a message with such a [destination], instead of saying that
>      such a [destination] MUST NOT be used but not saying what happens if
>      it is.
>
>
>      Paco
>
>
>
>                            David Hull
>                            <dmh@tibco.com>                 To:
>      Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
>                            Sent by:                        cc:
>      public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>                            public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Re:
>      CR20 proposal
>                            uest@w3.org
>                            02/12/2006 02:22 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>      Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
>
>            As per Bob's request, and for easier reference, this is a more
>            detailed
>            version of the proposal for closing CR20 that we discussed on
>            the last
>            call:
>
>            Middle of the road approach: retain the defaulting of the To
>            header to
>            anonymous, but re-state (in section 3.2 of the Core spec) that
>            the use of
>            the anonymous URI in the destination field is actually
>            dependent on the
>            interpretation that the transport binding gives to the
>            anonymous URI. Add
>
>      a
>
>            note in Section 3.5 of the SOAP spec indicating that for the
>            case of the
>            HTTP transport the anonymous URI is only used to indicate the
>            use of the
>            HTTP reply channel so it can only be used in reply messages.
>
>
>
>      Could you please state this in the form of an amendment to the text
>      accepted for section 3.5 in the resolution to CR 15 [1]?  While this
>      text has not yet been incorporated into the editors' draft yet, I
>      believe it represents the latest draft of that section.
>
>      [1]
>      http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085
>
>
>            Paco
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 21:33:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:11 GMT