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

Fw: Removal of Source Endpoint (wsa:From) - Feedback

From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2006 10:36:20 +0000
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF3132501A.9540D172-ON802570EC.00398CD1-802570EC.003A44A1@uk.ibm.com>
Another potential usage for the [source] MAP that has been mentioned is 
for metrics collection:  The wsa:From could be used to maintain 
information as a request passes through a number of intermediary endpoints 
in its route to the final destination.  This could be acheived by 
augmenting the wsa:From MAP at each intermediary so that at each step the 
path taken so far was nested within it (in a reference parameter) - hence 
building a path history for the message.
----- Forwarded by Katy Warr/UK/IBM on 04/01/2006 10:28 -----

"Ganapathy, Arunkumar" <Arunkumar.Ganapathy@Gateway.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
28/12/2005 23:17


Removal of Source Endpoint (wsa:From) - Feedback

While reviewing the W3C Candidate Recommendation and the editor?s copy of 
WS-Addressing specification, I have come across an editor's note that is 
somewhat surprising to me.  It states that "The working group is 
considering removing the wsa:From element due to lack of use-cases and 
seeks feedback on this decision."  I wanted to provide some feedback in 
support of NOT removing the wsa:From. 
Even though there are many different use-cases that I could think of at 
this point, ?Partner Identification? in a B2B scenario is one such 
use-case that I would like to mention. In most B2B applications, 
identifying the sending partner is always a requirement in order to secure 
the business transaction between the involved partners. 
In a one-way conversation between B2B partners, the wsa:From could be used 
to identify the sending partner. Even in case of asynchronous 
request-response scenario, wsa:From is the only way to identify the 
sending partner since the wsa:ReplyTo and wsa:FaultTo information could 
not be used to identify the sending partner as the EPR of ReplyTo and 
FaultTo might point to a different partner?s address. 
Also most transport mechanisms carry the ?From? information in some form 
today and if WS-Addressing is providing transport-neutral mechanism to 
address web services, then it MUST support wsa:From. Otherwise, transport 
binding of EPR might fail if the underlying transport supports and 
mandates the ?From? information.
Arunkumar Ganapathy
Chief Engineer
Gateway Inc.
7565 Irvine Center Drive
Irvine CA 92618
Office: (949)471-7116
Received on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 10:36:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:04:12 UTC