RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47

s/reponse/message/ my bad.
 
my point is that as with real world addresses, the urn denotes 
the message recipient, and not (always) the way the message 
should be transported. 
 
-----Original Message----- 
From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
Sent: Mon 07/02/2005 21:43 
To: Downey,PS,Paul,XAGA C 
Cc: Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk; jmarsh@microsoft.com; public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
Subject: Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47



 paul.downey@bt.com wrote:
 
 >Tom
 >
 >i'm not Savas, but a sender can send the reponse wherever it
 >likes! Though typically it will verify the address against a whitelist,
 >then a blacklist and send it /wherever/..
 > 
 >
 My question is simple, given an EPR, how does the sender determine where
 to send
 the request associated wtih that EPR. (not the response).
 
 I do not understand what you mean by "the sender can send the xxx
 wherever it likes"
 
 If it send it to a random HTTP url, how can it expect that URL to
 understand the wsa:to logical address value?
 
 I was assuming that the sender uses information in the EPR to deterimine
 the "transport"
 address to send the request message to.  In the soap/http binding this
 is an HTTP URL.
 
 tom Rutt
 
 >
 >Paul
 >
 >       -----Original Message-----
 >       From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Tom Rutt
 >       Sent: Mon 07/02/2005 21:26
 >       To: Savas Parastatidis
 >       Cc: Jonathan Marsh; public-ws-addressing@w3.org
 >       Subject: Re: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47
 >      
 >      
 >
 >
 >       Savas Parastatidis wrote:
 >       I have a question:
 >      
 >       Given an epr, how does the sending system determine the http address to
 >       use to
 >       send the http post request, if all it has is a logical urn for the
 >       epr:address element?
 >      
 >       this is not discussed in the spec.
 >      
 >       >Hi Tom,
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >>If what Gudge is describing is required, we might consider a multiple
 >       >>Protocol profile structure
 >       >>for the "EPR".   This is what IONA was getting at.  We could represent
 >       >>all the variant
 >       >>transport addresses required in the EPR.
 >       >>
 >       >>Otherwise I am not at all clear on how the "logical" uri gets mapped
 >       >>  
 >       >>
 >       >to
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >>the various
 >       >>transport addresses required for the variants desired.
 >       >>
 >       >>  
 >       >>
 >       >
 >       >There may not be a need to map the "logical" URI to a specific transport
 >       >address. Imagine a service with a logical address
 >       >'urn:chocolates:service' which sells chocolates. You want to buy a
 >       >chocolate from a peer-to-peer network of services without caring about
 >       >the actual endpoint of the service that will serve you.
 >       >
 >       ><soap:Envelope>
 >       >  <soap:Header>
 >       >    <wsa:To>urn:chocolates:service</wsa:To>
 >       >  </soap:Header>
 >       >  <soap:Body>
 >       >    <m:OrderForm>
 >       >      <m:noChocolateBars>10</m:noChocolateBars>
 >       >      <m:maxAmmountPerChocolateBar>1000</m:maxAmmountPerChocolateBar>
 >       >    </m:OrderForm>
 >       >  </soap:Body>
 >       ></soap:Envelope>
 >       >
 >       >All you have to do is just give this message to the P2P network which
 >       >will know how to do deal with it. No need to go from a logical to a
 >       >transport-specific address for this service. But even if you had to,
 >       >there is a use case for using logical addresses as indexes in registries
 >       >where transport-specific endpoints can be found at runtime ("give me all
 >       >the transport endpoints of the urn:chocolates:service service").
 >       >
 >       >
 >       How do you get interoperability unless this "registry" mechanism is
 >       defined in the spec?
 >      
 >       How does the client determine the http addres (in the soap http post
 >       binding case) to
 >       send the request to for that epr?
 >      
 >       Tom Rutt
 >      
 >       >Regards,
 >       >.savas.
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >
 >       >
 >      
 >      
 >       --
 >       ----------------------------------------------------
 >       Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
 >       Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
 >      
 >      
 >      
 >      
 >      
 >
 > 
 >
 
 
 --
 ----------------------------------------------------
 Tom Rutt        email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
 Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

Received on Monday, 7 February 2005 22:11:39 UTC