- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 3 Aug 2006 21:30:37 -0400
- To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC7AE3CAD.B49F159F-ON852571BF.00729811-852571C0.00084B0D@us.ibm.com>
To elaborate a little on Bob's note [1], in the WSA WSDL spec, when talking about the various values for the Anonymous Element it lists: "optional": This value indicates that a response endpoint EPR in a request message MAY contain an anonymous URI as an address. "required":This value indicates that all response endpoint EPRs in a request message MUST always use anonymous URI as an address. If a response endpoint EPR does not contain the anonymous URI as an address value, then a predefined InvalidAddressingHeader fault defined in Web Services Addressing 1.0 - SOAP Binding [WS-Addressing SOAP Binding] MUST be generated. "prohibited":This value indicates that any response EPRs in a request message MUST NOT use anonymous URI as an address. If a response endpoint EPR contains the anonymous URI as an address value, then a predefined InvalidAddressingHeader fault defined in Web Services Addressing 1.0 - SOAP Binding [WS-Addressing SOAP Binding] MUST be generated. The problem comes up when another spec defines their own version of anonymous - like WS-RM does. It defines an anon URI which acts almost exactly like the WSA one in that it means "send it on the transport specific back-channel". However, if the wsaw:Anonymous element is set to "required" then the above text would seem to imply that regardless of whether or not the RM spec is supported by the endpoint, the client can never send a wsa:ReplyTo with anything other than WSA's anonymous. So the above text precludes another spec from ever extending WSA to define their own anon URI where from a WSA perspective its equivalent. If the text were loosened up a bit to not mention the WSA anon URI specifically, but rather something more generic like: "... MUST always use a URI implying the transport specific back-channel" then the use of the wsaw:Anonymous element would not preclude other specs defining their own anon URI and not violate the meaning of the wsaw:Anonymous. thanks -Doug [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Aug/0009.html
Received on Friday, 4 August 2006 01:30:55 UTC