Re: NEW ISSUE: Binding of message addressing properties in the SOAP underlying protocol [i051]

This is now issue 051;
   http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/wd-issues/#i051


On Feb 18, 2005, at 7:43 AM, Hugo Haas wrote:

>
> -=- Description -=-
>
> We define as message addressing properties concepts that happen to
> exist in certain SOAP underlying protocols. A good example is the
> [action] message addressing property and the action parameter of the
> application/soap+xml media type carried by HTTP's Content-Type header.
>
> We need to clearly define the relationship for this information when
> it appears in different places, i.e. whether they are independent,
> equal, or related another way.
>
> -=- Justification -=-
>
> Questions arose about the relationship of this similar information
> appearing in different places[3]. Core hints that [action] and SOAP
> Action are similar for example[4] though the description provided is
> SOAP 1.1 specific.
>
> We should provide a basis for such equivalence rules for a variety of
> message addressing properties and bindings.
>
> -=- Target -=-
>
> SOAP binding
>
> -=- Proposal -=-
>
> SOAP features were created in part to deal with the fact that
> different bindings provide different (lowercase f) features, and that
> certain things will sometime need to be expressed as SOAP headers,
> whereas sometimes they will be able to travel in the underlying
> protocol outside of the envelope.
>
> As we have a set of such information, I believe that we should use the
> SOAP features and properties framework to deal with them.
>
> That will allow bindings to clearly express whether they have some
> built-in mechanisms for some of this information. In particular, this
> will clarify the relationship between these built-in mechanisms and
> our message addressing properties.
>
> To refer to an earlier email about action and message-id[2], I believe
> that a SOAP Action should be equivalent to an [action] message
> addressing property, and an message id in an email binding should be
> equivalent to our [message id] property. As an additional foreword,
> this looks like but is different from an F&P proposal that I made
> earlier[5]; the WG felt at the time[6] that SOAP F&P were a more
> appropriate way to do what I was trying to achieve, so here it is.
>
> I propose the following changes, all in the SOAP binding:
>
> 1. Define a SOAP 1.2 feature, the SOAP Addressing 1.0 Feature. The
>   SOAP Addressing 1.0 module that we are defining (see my other email
>   about defining modules) is implementing the SOAP Addressing 1.0
>   Feature, identified by the URI:
>   http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature
>
> 2. Define each message addressing property as being a SOAP property of
>   the SOAP Addressing 1.0 Feature, using the following pattern:
>   http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature/{PROPERTY}
>   where property is:
>   - [destination]		->	Destination
>   - [source endpoint]		->	SourceEndpoint
>   - [reply endpoint]		->	ReplyEndpoint	
>   - [fault endpoint]		->	FaultEndpoint
>   - [message id]		->	MessageId
>   - [relationship]		->	Relationship
>   - [reference parameters]	->	ReferenceParameters
>
>   You will have noted that [action] is missing from this list; I
>   believe that [action] should be the property
>   http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap/features/action/Action as they are
>   identical.
>
>   As an example of this benefit, suppose that somebody defines an
>   SMTP binding for SOAP 1.2 with support for the Internet Message
>   Format (RFC2822) which would provide the Message-Id header, and
>   MIME (RFC 2045) which provide the Content-Type header; this binding
>   would support:
>   - the SOAP Action feature
>   - expressing
>     http://www.w3.org/YYYY/MM/addressing/soap12/feature/MessageId
>     as an mid: URI.
>
> 3. We should make a statement, if an underlying protocol binding
>   supports carrying one of the properties from the SOAP Addressing
>   1.0 Feature, whether:
>   - the value should be duplicated, i.e. expressed both at the
>     underlying binding level and in the envelope;
>   - the SOAP header doesn't need to be serialized in the envelope as
>     it's expressed at the underlying binding level.
>
> Comments?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Hugo
>
>  1.  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/ 
> 0067.html
>  2.  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/ 
> 0112.html
>  3.  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Feb/ 
> 0109.html
>  4. http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-ws-addr-core-20050215/#_Toc77464322
>  5.  
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2004Dec/ 
> 0067.html
>  6. http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/4/dec-f2f-minutes.html#item12
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
>
>

--
Mark Nottingham   Principal Technologist
Office of the CTO   BEA Systems

Received on Tuesday, 22 February 2005 21:46:27 UTC