Re: proposed breaking change to echo global element declaration

Tim Ewald wrote:

>It conveys the intent of the message without having to crack the body (esp.
>if the body is encrypted). I haven't read the latest draft of the spec, but
>I raised an issue with an earlier draft around mandating that wsa:Action be
>used for dispatching. Among other things, it means that a kit has to
>dispatch differently when using WS-Addressing and when not using
>WS-Addressing. But more importantly, why does should the spec care how
>dispatching is done?
>  
>
We don't say that anymore.  We only say that action absolutely,
positively MUST be there, even if you're not using HTTP or SOAP.  We
don't say anything at all about what if anything one might do with it,
but it's positioned as a fundamental property of an addressed message,
on a par with having a destination.  I regret not having paid closer
attention to that discussion, but at the time I was still getting my sea
legs.

>Thanks,
>Tim-
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Simon Fell
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:26 PM
>>To: paul.downey@bt.com; distobj@acm.org; 
>>public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: proposed breaking change to echo global element 
>>declaration
>>
>>
>>If dispatching is done purely on the GED, then what exactly 
>>is wsa:Action for ??
>>
>>Tx
>>Simon 
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>>paul.downey@bt.com
>>Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 9:46 AM
>>To: distobj@acm.org; public-ws-addressing-tests@w3.org;
>>public-ws-addressing@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: proposed breaking change to echo global element 
>>declaration
>>
>>
>>Hi Mark,
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Whatever the resolution, I hope that the need for additional 
>>>out-of-band agreement (other than what is defined in the SOAP & WSDL
>>>specs) is documented as an interoperability problem.
>>>      
>>>
>>I'm unsure what OOB agreement is needed - the issue is that 
>>the same element 'echo' being used for the input and output, 
>>an endpoint acting as both the sender and receiver roles can 
>>only use Action to distinguish if the echo is a request or a 
>>response. 
>>
>>In practice, an endpoint is unlikely be operating as both 'client'
>>and 'server', 'publisher' and 'subscriber' etc. so changing 
>>the message body element to be also unique relaxes the 
>>requirement artificially placed upon implementations to 
>>process based upon wsa:Action rather than the message 
>>contents or even some combination of the two.
>>
>>As far as the sender is concerned, they only need to populate 
>>the wsa:Action and body fields as directed by the WSDL, EPR 
>>or whatever and all is well.
>>
>>Paul 
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>  
>