- From: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2005 11:36:21 -0800
- To: tom@coastin.com
- CC: public-ws-addressing@w3.org, Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>
Tom Rutt wrote: > > 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).. > . Could we just say that the binding defines how the address is dereferenced? > If the word "physical address" is inappropriate to refer to this "http > address" concept then we > should come up with a better term. > My proposal was not meant to be included as is. It was meant to convey the intention. I'm not sure there is a benefit to creating distinctions between physical/logical address. I have filed an issue regd this. > 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 >> >> > >
Received on Monday, 21 February 2005 19:37:08 UTC