RE: Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and SOAPAction

Paul,

Proposal 1 only affects the WSDL document - hence no change re:CR status. 
It doesn't deprecate any existing behaviour.  It will also ensure that 
SOAPAction==wsa:Action (your second concern).

thanks
Katy




<paul.downey@bt.com> 
17/10/2005 23:05

To
Katy Warr/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and SOAPAction






I was unclear the impact of adopting either proposal would
have on our CR status - would we have to go back to Last Call?

Also having recently talked with people tasked with securing 
Web services who worry about SOAPAction != wsa:Action
!= the 'action' being authorised, I'm inclined to keep the 
Status Quo.


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Katy Warr
Sent: Mon 10/17/2005 10:17 PM
To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
Subject: Issue i065 : Conflict between default action pattern and 
SOAPAction
 
Here is a summary of what was said on the call re i065.  Apologies if I 
missed of any points, but I'm sure someone can put me straight :o)
Katy


ISSUE:
wsa:Action MUST equal SOAPAction but this is not possible in all cases 
(i.e. when wsa:Action is being gen'd by default Action pattern).

PROPOSAL 1:
In the absence of <wsaw:Action>, use SOAPAction in preference to 
defaultAction pattern.
Pros
+ Keeps SOAPAction and wsa:Action the same which might be considered 
better architecturally
Concerns:
- Are implementations using the relative URIs for SOAPAction? (To 
investigate)
- Makes the specification for generating wsa:Action more complicated

PROPOSAL 2:
In absence of <wsaw:Action>, use default Action Pattern (as stated 
currently).    Relax the restriction that Action MUST equal SOAPAction 
(but recommend that they SHOULD equal)
Pros:
+ Simpler pattern for wsa:Action generation
Concerns:
- Makes implementation more complex if the Action and SOAPAction differ 
(for example, which to dispatch on)