RE: Composibility problems with refps

Specifically, you're worried about the case where the reference
properties and reference parameters are in a namespace used by the
reliability, security, etc. mechanisms, right?

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-
> addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> Sent: Monday, November 15, 2004 11:10 AM
> To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> Subject: Composibility problems with refps
> 
> 
> All,
> 
> During last week's concall discussion of issue i008 I took an action
> to
> explain the composibility problem with refps in an email. This email
> fulfills that action.
> 
> WS-Addressing [1] Submission includes [reference properties] and
> [reference parameters] in the info models for EPR. These refps are
> opaque to the consumer. In the SOAP binding of EPR, the refps are
> bound
> as individual SOAP header blocks. I.e., a consumer of a EPR using SOAP
> is required to copy the refps as individual SOAP header blocks without
> understanding what the blocks mean or do.
> 
> Typically SOAP header blocks are part of a SOAP module and express
> certain functionality. For example, WSS, WS-Reliability,
> WS-ReliableMessaging, WS-C, WS-T WS-Context etc, specify header blocks
> that have a particular meaning that is conveyed from the sender to the
> receiver. Specifications in the realm of Web services are designed to
> be
> composible with other specs. For example, WS-Context can be composed
> with WS-Reliability and WSS.
> 
> A consuming application that dereferences an EPR that contains refps
> may
> have some policies in place wrt to reliability, security,
> coordination,
> transaction, privacy etc. Given that refps may contains any XML and
> these refps are bound as SOAP header blocks, refps can potentially
> interfere with composibility of WS-Addressing with other WS-* specs
> that
> the consumer may be using. The opacity of the refps prevents the
> consumer from making any inferences about the refps in an EPR.
> 
> This issue is slightly different from the security of EPRs -- which
> *may* potentially be resolved by requiring the minter of the EPR to
> sign
> the EPR.
> 
> HTH to clarify the issue.
> 
> -Anish
> --
> 
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2004/SUBM-ws-addressing-20040810/
>

Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 16:56:13 UTC