RE: CR33: Describing RM using WSDL?

OK, so the problem is in [1] which conflates "non-anonymous" with
"addressable".  That implies that any URI other than the WS-A anonymous
SHOULD NOT use the back-channel.  Fortunately (if the RM-style-anonymous
is a good idea, which I still am not sure of), the SHOULD is there,
which may give us wiggle room.

 

But since RM hasn't reused our anonymous URI, I don't see why you want
to reuse our wsaw:Anonymous marker.  Why doesn't RM-anonymous have its
own marker, which may or may not be composable with all values of
wsaw:Anonymous?  (Composition of a policy expression with a WSDL
extension seems like it might be tricky too.)

 

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/REC-ws-addr-soap-20060509/#nonanonaddress

 

 

________________________________

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Sunday, August 13, 2006 5:49 PM
To: Jonathan Marsh
Cc: Alastair Green; Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
Subject: Re: CR33: Describing RM using WSDL?

 


The interaction we're talking about _is_ an application-level
interaction.  Using the classic 
StockQuote example, when the GetStockQuote request flows there are three
possible 
values for wsa:ReplyTo that are of interest to this conversation: 
1 - addressable URI (e.g. ibm.com) 
2 - WSA's anonymous 
3 - RM's anonymous 

Obviously 1 is the normal async response case.  Its the 2nd and 3rd
cases that get a 
bit more interesting.  If the wsaw:Anonymous is set to 'required' in the
WSDL then it would 
preclude the use of RM's anonymous on the GetStockQuote request message
even 
though its use is consistent with WSA's anonymous, so this would mean
only '2' is allowed.   

Not being involved in the history behind the wsaw:Anonymous flag I'm
guessing that 
its intended to let the client know whether or not the server will
support sending back 
async responses or whether the client is limited to receiving them thru
the transport 
back-channel.  RM's anonymous fits this pattern - which is why we have
some concern 
with this flag if it only allows WSA's anonymous URI, and isn't
extensible to support 
consistent (but different) URIs. 

RM's policy assertions do compose with WSA's but they only deal with
whether or 
not RM is required/optional - they do not say anything about the use of
anonymous. 

thanks, 
-Doug 


"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com> wrote on 08/13/2006 07:36:05 PM:

> I don't understand how wsaw:Anonymous (which is used for describing
> application-level interactions) and RM's use of a pseudo-anonymous URI
> would interact.  Are you trying to describe the RM protocol in WSDL?
> Don't you have an RM policy assertion for that?
> 
> It would be unfortunate if wsaw:Anonymous and the RM policy weren't
> composable.  This issue implies they aren't, that the
application-level
> interactions aren't independent from protocol-level interactions, and
> that there may be constraints to the allowable values of
wsaw:Anonymous
> when RM is engaged, which if true seems like a design flaw that can't
be
> fixed simply by twiddling with the definition of wsaw:Anonymous.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bob Freund
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 6:36 PM
> > To: Alastair Green; Doug Davis
> > Cc: Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
> > Subject: RE: CR33
> > 
> > 
> > Alastair,
> > The issue may be viewed at
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/#cr33
> > Thanks for joining.
> > -bob
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Alastair Green [mailto:alastair.green@choreology.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, August 09, 2006 4:20 PM
> > > To: Doug Davis
> > > Cc: Bob Freund; Christopher B Ferris; [WS-A]
> > > Subject: Re: CR33
> > >
> > > Hi Bob,
> > >
> > > If CR33 is something to do with the current RM-inspired discussion
> > then
> > > I would very much like to take part. Thank you for inviting me.
> > >
> > > I'm deep in the bowels of correspondence. Can you let me know what
> > CR33
> > > says, how do I find a link to it, etc? I am not familiar with your
> > > process, I'm afraid, and I haven't read the full gamut of mails
from
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Yrs,
> > >
> > > Alastair
> > >
> > > Doug Davis wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks Bob - I'll be there.
> > > > -Doug
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > *"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com>*
> > > >
> > > > 08/09/2006 01:28 PM
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To
> > > >    Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "Alastair Green"
> > > > <alastair.green@choreology.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> > > > cc
> > > >    "[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> > > > Subject
> > > >    CR33
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alastair, Chris, and Doug,
> > > >
> > > > The agenda for next Monday's meeting of ws-addressing will
feature
> > > > CR33 which was originated by Doug Davis.
> > > >
> > > > I would like to invite you to participate in the call to express
> > your
> > > > points of view and participate in the resolution of this issue.
> > > >
> > > > The call is scheduled for 4:00p-6:00 US Eastern time.
> > > >
> > > > The conference call bridge is via Zakim +1-617-761-6200 access
> code
> > > > 2337(addr)
> > > > Irc is available at irc.w3.org, port 6665, and the channel for
the
> > Web
> > > > Services Working Group is _#ws-addr_
> > <irc://irc.w3.org:6665/#ws-addr>.
> > > >
> > > > I hope that through your participation we can achieve a
consensus
> > > > resolution to this issue quickly. Please let me know if you plan
> to
> > > > participate.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > -bob
>