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

RE: What problem are we trying to solve?

From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 04:56:32 -0400
To: "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
Cc: bob@freunds.com, "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFF91DCD56.8378C368-ON852571FD.0030BE78-852571FD.00311DCA@us.ibm.com>
"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> wrote on 10/03/2006 08:12:03 PM:
> That's looking too closely at the details. After all, if it were not
> for the desire to transmit the identifying information, WS-RM would 
> not need a special URI - it could and would use the existing anonymous 
URI. 

identifying info is one part yes - and it seems odd that people are
put off by that since URIs are usually used to identify resources :-)
However, the other part is the semantics of how to connect to the
endpoint - which is no different then http://... vs smtp://...
vs anon vs pipe-X ...

> I don't see any need for a slew of new "magic" URIs. I don't like 
> "magic" values - anonymous is sensible, and none is acceptable, but 
> encouraging the creation of more is a very bad idea. Magic values 
> suggest that we got the design wrong and that we need these magic 
> values to indicate that we're deviating from the original design.

Not necessarily - what it means is that WSA couldn't anticipate
all possible mechanisms of how to identify/connect to the other
endpoint.  It would be wrong to think it could.

-Doug


> Tony Rogers
> tony.rogers@ca.com
> 
> 
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
> Sent: Wednesday, 4 October 2006 7:11
> To: bob@freunds.com
> Cc: [WS-A]; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: What problem are we trying to solve?

> 
> Bob, 
>  A couple of points: 
> 
> - A4 - if I'm reading your text right, I believe you're saying that 
> other specs can define their own replyTo header.  And this is true. 
> However, this means that WSA is extensible by allowing people to 
> avoid WSA.  Funny  :-) 
> 
> - Despite all of the talk around CR33, the issue is not about 
> transmitting identifying information.  Nor is it about whether or 
> not identifying information should be placed in the URI or in some 
> Reference Parameter/Property.  The issue around CR33 is whether or 
> not WSA will allow other specs to define new 'special' non-
> addressable URIs and allow them to be used in the wsa:
> ReplyTo/FaultTo.  That's it.  It doesn't matter what the semantics 
> of those URIs are, it doesn't matter how people are going to use 
> them - its much simpler than that.  Can other specs do exactly what 
> WSA did and define new URIs?  Any discussion about whether or not a 
> spec made the right choice to do that is not relevant.  WSA needs to
> answer the very simple question from a more abstract point of view 
> and once that answer is found then I think everything else will fall
> into place. 
> 
> So, does the WSA WG think that no other spec, for all time, will 
> ever need to define a new special non-addressable URI that may be 
> used in ReplyTo/FaultTo?  (like ws-rm or ws-discovery did) 
> 
> thanks, 
> -Doug 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> "Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> 
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
> 10/03/2006 09:01 AM 
> 
> To
> 
> "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org> 
> 
> cc
> 
> Subject
> 
> What problem are we trying to solve?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a list of the results, as I heard them, of our discussion on
> 2006-10-02 related to our response to CR33 
> 
> Exposition: 
> It seems that the desire inferred by the issue is that an endpoint 
> would like to transmit identifying information (or perhaps some 
> other parametric information) in a one way message, and that one way
> message is intended to be used to ?open the backchannel? upon which 
> may be transmitted information that is determined in part by the 
> identifying or parametric information transmitted in the originating
> message.  In the specific use case presented, the issue originator 
> proposes that this identifying or parametric information be passed 
> in the replyTo uri as a special form of ?anonymous?.  CR33 states 
> that the WS-Addressing WSDL binding CR document would create 
> interoperability issues with their implementation since it does not 
> permit a form of anonymous other than the literal ?anonymous? to be 
> represented in WSDL. 
> 
> In the WS-Addressing Teleconference of 2006-10-02, there was a 
> brainstorming session intended to clarify exactly what problem the 
> WS-Addressing working group was trying to solve related to its 
> resolution of CR33 since several proposals related to a direct 
> response to CR33 have failed as yet to gain consensus. 
> 
> Alternatives mentioned: (please feel free to come up with more if 
> you have a better idea) 
> 
> A1) During the progress of the WS-Addressing working group, a 
> feature known as Reference Properties was removed from the original 
> submission.  If this were to be added back, then this could be used 
> to convey such identifying or parametric information.  This would 
> imply changes to both rec level specifications as well as the WSDL 
> binding.  It is not clear if these might be ?breaking changes?. 
> 
> A2) The WS-Addressing specifications include a feature known as 
> Reference Parameters which are created by the epr minter which are 
> considered to be ?opaque? to all but the minter.  Outside of the WS-
> Addressing ?layer? there may be no such constraint.  Reference 
> Parameters might be used to convey this identifying or parametric 
> information.  Note that there is not general agreement that WS-
> Addressing is a ?layer? or if it is a set of kit parts which may be 
> used at any layer. This might imply a clarifying change to WS-
> Addressing specifications. 
> 
> A3) WS-Addressing includes a feature known as ?From? which contains 
> a uri.  There are no behavioral constraints imposed by ?From? and 
> potentially anything that might be represented as a uri might be 
> conveyed. This might imply a clarifying change to WS-Addressing 
> specifications. 
> 
> A4) WS-Addressing defined a limited set of special URLs which mean 
> specific things to WS-Addressing when used in replyTo.  These are 
> ?anonymous? and ?none?.  If the behavior specified by WS-Addressing 
> is not desired, then the authors of other specifications might 
> specify their own forms of replyTo semantics appropriate to their 
> application without WS-Addressing implications.  This would imply 
> that CR33 be closed with no action. 
> 
> A5) It was suggested that there is wide latitude in what might be 
> contained in a SOAP header and the authors might be able to use such
> a means to convey the desired identifying or parametric information.
> This would imply that CR33 be closed with no action. 
> 
> A6) WS-Addressing Core and SOAP binding are fine as-is, but we just 
> need to fix the WSDL binding or perhaps come up with a WSDL cum 
> policy related change.  For proposals related to this alternative, 
> please refer to the issue list. 
> 
> For the purposes of this thread please identify in the subject line 
> the alternative A[1-n] referenced or ?exposition? if you feel the 
> problem statement needs improvement. 
> 
> Thanks 
> -bob 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 4 October 2006 08:56:45 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:35:14 GMT