Re: Issue i020, subissue 3 proposal

Anish Karmarkar wrote:

>
> Per my AI, Paco and I discussed subissue 3 of issue i020 last night 
> and a proposed resolution for it. Here is what we would like to 
> propose to resolve subissue 3.
>
> [[ Please note that Paco and I have only generally agreed on what the 
> resolution should be; he has not seen the wordings in this email and 
> therefore it should not be assumed that he has agreed to the wordings ]]
>
>
> Subissue iii [1] is:
>
> -----
> An EPR allows one to include (optionally) a service endpoint/port.
> If such an endpoint/port is included in an EPR, what is the relationship
> between the value of the [address] property and the URI value in the
> [service-port] property? We have said that the [address] property is a
> logical address and not necessarily the physical endpoint where messages
> can be sent and how the mapping between logical to physical takes place
> is an extensibility point. Is that true if a service QName is present in
> the EPR. I.e., should our spec say that if the service QName is present
> then the physical address is what is specified by the wsdl port.
> -----
>
> Proposed resolution:
>
> 1) When the EPR minter includes a [selected interface], and/or 
> [service endpoint] then the EPR is considered to be specific to the 
> [selected interface] and/or [service endpoint]
>
> 2) When an EPR contains [service endpoint] with a QName identifying 
> the service element and an NCName identifying port/endpoint, then the 
> information specified in the port/endpoint (including the network 
> endpoint address) is used to send messages to the endpoint 
> identified^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h^h specified by the EPR. I.e., the 
> physical address/binding used to contact the endpoint is the one 
> specified in the port/endpoint. This physical address may be the same 
> as the one in the [address] property. If it is different from the 
> value in the [address] property then the [address] property is 
> considered to be a logical address.

I really like proposal 2) above.  However, based on discussion at the 
Teleconference I would like
to add a clarification regarding the use of Physical address in the text:

Each specific protocol has its own "definition" of physical address.

For the Soap/HTTP Post binding, this text is meant to refer to the the 
HTTP "address", which is
the request-uri value in the POST request-line (rfc2616 section 5.1) 
along with the value for the HOST Line in the request-header (rfc2616 
sections 5.3 and 14.23)..
.
If the word "physical address" is inappropriate to refer to this "http 
address" concept then we
should come up with a better term.

Tom Rutt
Fujitsu

>
> 3) When an EPR contains [service interface] property with a QName 
> identifying the service element but an NCName identifying 
> port/endpoint is *not* specified, then the information specified in 
> any of the port/endpoint (including the network endpoint address) that 
> implements the [selected interface], if present, is used to send 
> messages to the endpoint specified by the EPR. I.e., the physical 
> address/binding used to contact the endpoint is the one specified in 
> any of the port/endpoint. The [address] property is considered to be a 
> logical address if there are more than one ports/endpoints defined in 
> the service element.
>
> Comments?
>
> -Anish
> -- 
>
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Jan/0101.html 
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133

Received on Tuesday, 15 February 2005 17:08:10 UTC