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

Re: Action item for cr23: cr15 resolution nullified cr4 resolution: UPDATED proposed text

From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Mar 2006 01:42:24 -0800
Message-ID: <4406BE00.503@oracle.com>
To: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
CC: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>

Katy Warr wrote:
> 
> All,
> 
> Based on the on-going discussions on the mailing list, I'd like to 
> replace the proposed text for action item cr23 with the following.   
> This improves the text by specifying anonymous URI behaviour in terms of 
> the 'context' in which it is used but retains the same intent as the 
> original proposal.  This updated text is also applicable to the editors' 
> draft - hence incorporates 5.1.1 and 5.1.2.
> 
> Thanks to David Hull and Chris Ferris for this.
> 
>  > 5.1 Use of Anonymous Address in SOAP
>  > The _"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"_ URI MAY be
>  > specified as the [address] of an EPR to designate that the target
>  > endpoint is reached by a means provided by the underlying SOAP
>  > protocol binding.  The exact destination to which the "_http://www_ 
> <http://www/>.
>  > w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" URI refers is determined
>  > relative to a given context.  This context will depend on the
>  > semantics of the EPR in question.
>  >

I don't see why we should have context-sensitive semantics.
I would instead prefer to state what we mean by anon in the context that 
we care about: replyTo/faultTo and leave it at that. It is after all a 
URI that we are minting for our purpose.

Other specs may or may not use the anon uri to mean something else, 
there is not much we can do about it. I would prefer that WSRX TC use a 
different URI (since they mean something completely different than what 
we mean -- and URI minting is cheap), but that's for that TC to decide.

To that end, eventhough I raised this issue (as I was surprised that the 
resolution of CR4 was overturned), I would like to propose that we close 
this issue with no action.

-Anish
--

>  > In the case of the response endpoints and the [destination] MAP, the
>  > context is a single instance of a request-response message exchange.  
>  > In particular:
>  >
>  > [existing text for section 5.1, repeated here for completeness]
>  > 5.1.1 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.
>  > 5.1.2 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 message exchange [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts],
>  > then any response MUST be the response part of the same SOAP
>  > request-response message exchange [SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts].
> 
> ALSO
>  > To resolve the dangling reference to "response endpoint",
>  > we should move that definition from the WSDL doc to the core.
> 
> Katy
> 
> ----- Forwarded by Katy Warr/UK/IBM on 27/02/2006 09:44 -----
> *Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> 
> 22/02/2006 11:04
> 
> 	
> To
> 	"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Action item for cr23: cr15 resolution nullified cr4 resolution: 
> proposed  text
> 
> 
> 	
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Further to my action on Monday to propose resolution text for CR23, here 
> is a suggestion.  I've tried to maintain the previously agreed text from 
> CR4 and CR15 where possible.  
> 
> The intention is that the first paragraph enables the use of anonymous 
> EPR in semantics including (but not exclusive to) replyTo and faultTo 
> (such as WS-RX acksTo).  This satisfies CR4.
> 
> The second paragraph gives the semantics specific to replyTo/faultTo - 
> this is very similar to the resolution of CR15 but specific to the 
> replyTo/faultTo scenario so that it does not undo the resolution to CR4 
> in the first paragraph.
> 
> This text is applicable to section 5.1 of the SOAP binding document.
> 
> -------------------------
> The "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" URI MAY be specified as
> the [address] of an EPR to designate that the target endpoint is
> reached by a channel of the underlying SOAP protocol binding.
> The specification of the channel to which the
> "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" URI refers depends on the
> Message Exchange Pattern (MEP) and on the
> defined semantics of the EPR in question.  Any underlying protocol 
> binding supporting the SOAP
> request-response MEP provides such a channel for
> response messages.
>                                                  
> In the context of a SOAP request-response MEP, sending a response 
> message to a
> ReplyTo or FaultTo
> EPR whose [address] is "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
> means sending it as the response message of the MEP.
> For instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts]
> puts the reply message in the HTTP response.
> --------------------------
> 
> We may be able to omit the sentence:  " Any underlying protocol binding 
> supporting the SOAP
> request-response MEP provides such a channel for
> response messages. "
> 
> This second paragraph requires restructure to fit with the SOAP 1.1/HTTP 
> and SOAP 1.2 split in the editors'
> draft.  I suggest that we defer this until we have reached agreement on 
> the general structure of the text above.
> 
> thanks
> Katy
Received on Thursday, 2 March 2006 09:43:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:12 GMT