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

RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc

From: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 18:48:37 -0500
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0D660166.34F92574-ON852570FB.0082792A-852570FB.0082CB5D@us.ibm.com>

Can we then safely say that anonymous will have the same implications
regardless of the transport we use? Based on its definition, one may send
back a response t anonymous address and still be in the same MEP - think a
JMS installation that takes anonymous for "the destination provided by the
MOM infrastructure". We are making risky generalizations here.

Paco



                                                                                                                                        
                      "David Orchard"                                                                                                   
                      <dorchard@bea.com        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                             
                      >                        cc:       "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                  
                                               Subject:  RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc                                          
                      01/19/2006 06:34                                                                                                  
                      PM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        




And I believe that you won't get to consensus on making 3.4.2 soap 1.2
HTTP specific.  At least 3 people have objected to that notion.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:22 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc
>
> Text along these lines would be clearer. I also think 3.4.2 should be
HTTP
> specific (and I updated the text accordingly).
>
> =================================================
>
> 3.4.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding
>
> WS-Addressing changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding used when the value of
the
> response endpoint EPR contains an address different from the
WS-Addressing
> anonymous URI. In this case, the receiver of a message MUST use a
binding
> that supports not returning a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response (such
as
> [URI for binding doc]) unless a different behavior is mandated for the
URI
> specified in the response endpoint EPR address by another
specification
> that is supported by the endpoint.  Absent such a requirement by
another
> specification, if the value of the response endpoint EPR contains an
> address that is different from the WS-Addressing anonymous URI, then
the
> outbound message MUST be sent using a separate connection and using
the
> address value specified by response endpoint.
>
> 3.4.2 SOAP 1.2/HTTP binding
>
> When the value of the response endpoint EPR contains the anonymous
address
> and the request is the request part of a SOAP request-response MEP
[soap
> 1.2 adjuncts ref], then the response must be the response part the
same
> SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref].  When the value of
the
> response endpoint EPR contains a value different from the anonymous
> address
> then any response message is not part of the mep that the request
message
> is in.
Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:48:50 GMT

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