RE: Composibility problems with refps

Chris,

Can we stick to Question everything (Why do we need to subject ref's and
prop's to SOAP Processing Model?) instead of it's already in there
everything will crumble if you take it out ("colossal mistake" and "red
herring")

What are the advantages of subjecting ref props's and param's to SOAP
Processing Model? And what exactly do we lose by going the opposite way.
Since I am feeling a bit lost....Let's take an example, Omri talks about
Ref Props's as part of the identity of the service
(http://www.gazitt.com/OhmBlog/). Are u suggesting that an intermediary
should know all about the services that is behind it? And on the other
hand let's take a Ref Param ["ability to send "parameters" (or attach
"cookies") to the EPR, without changing the service identity"]. Are u
saying that an intermediary should know all possible values of every
parameter that is likely to be sent to a service?

Thanks,
dims

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Christopher B
Ferris
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2004 4:10 PM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org;
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org; tom@coastin.com
Subject: Re: Composibility problems with refps


Anish/Tom,

But then this means that the refps that under the current design become
SOAP headers, and subject to the SOAP processing model, would no longer
be subject to the SOAP processing model. I think that this would be a
collossal mistake.

Frankly, I think that the idea of reference properties/params
interfering with other WS-* use of headers is a red herring. Of course,
it is always possible to do something that would break any protocol. At
most, I could see adding a note in the spec that recommended caution
when including any protocol elements as reference property/parameters as
their subsequent inclusion as SOAP header blocks in messages addressed
to the endpoint *might*, I repeat, *might* conflict with constraints as
to cardinality of such header blocks in a message, etc.

I would strongly discourage any thoughts of a wrapper element for
reference property/parameters.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295



Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> Sent by:
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
11/22/2004 02:03 PM

To
tom@coastin.com
cc
Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject
Re: Composibility problems with refps







I agree that would indeed solve the problem -- either refp specific
header(s) or the use of [to] property.

-Anish
--

Tom Rutt wrote:

> 
> As Glen has suggested before, encapsulating the ref parms and ref 
> props in a ws-addressing specific header element would allow arbitrary

> qnames for the ref props and ref parms, without confusion.
> 
> Tom Rutt
> 
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
> 
>>
>> Yes.
>> Or in the context of SOAP, composability with any specification that 
>> uses SOAP header(s) as a mechanism to convey information.
>>
>> -Anish
>> --
>>
>> Jonathan Marsh wrote:
>>
>>> 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 22:07:58 UTC