W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-addressing@w3.org > February 2005

RE: Thoughts on TAG issue EndpointsRef47

From: Savas Parastatidis <Savas.Parastatidis@newcastle.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Feb 2005 23:45:14 -0000
Message-ID: <37E80E80B681A24B8F768D607373CA8001CA6F74@largo.campus.ncl.ac.uk>
To: <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>

> 
> Why isn't a http URL logical? It is a logical address that happens to
be
> resolved by an application-specific combination of DNS lookup and Web
> Server at message transfer time. Savas' prior example of using a URN
to
> address a service hosted on a P2P network is no different really.
> 

To further support Jim's argument above, let me give another example. Do
you think that WS-Addressing should specify that when the SOAP message
bellow is sent by a sender the sender MUST use HTTP for the transfer of
that message?

<soap:Envelope>
  <soap:Header>
    <wsa:To>http://chocolates.com/service</wsa:To>
    <wsa:Action>urn:ProcessMessage</wsa:Action> <!-- :-) -->
  </soap:Header>
  <soap:Body>
    <!-- bla bla -->
  </soap:Body>
</soap:Envelope>

What if the original sender decided to use a pigeon to transfer this
SOAP message to an intermediary? Does it really have to use HTTP? Should
WS-Addressing define the semantics on how a SOAP message is transported?

Regards,
.savas.
Received on Wednesday, 9 February 2005 01:42:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:28:23 UTC