- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2006 09:55:30 -0500
- To: "public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
- Message-id: <43ECA962.2090807@tibco.com>
I would prefer option 2 (Allow anonymous in the [destination] for messages and define it as the binding-specified destination of the message.) I believe this is most consistent with existing practice (pre-WSA HTTP servers have the URL of the request available for disp^H^H^H^H whatever purpose they may need it for), with the overall web architecture (per Mark Baker's note, if I understand it correctly), and with our handling of anonymous in response endpoints. It's somewhat inconsistent with the non-normative description we give to anonymous, but we can fix that. I can live with option 0 (Keep the status quo, allowing anonymous for [destination] but not defining the behavior, and note that there are interoperability problems with using anonymous for [destination] except for anonymous responses (*).) I think Paul has a better idea here for what to note: Note that anonymous [destination] has no particular meaning, not that "there are interoperability problems" as I suggested in [1]. I would support Paul's proposed text for this option. I can only live with option 1 (Disallow anonymous in the [destination]) if it is tightly scoped. Indeed, the text in [1] should have taken into account that anonymous [destination] is /required/ for responses when the response endpoint used is anonymous. In any case, I can live with "Disallow anonymous in the [destination] of requests in a request-response MEP", where request-response MEP means HTTP request-response for SOAP 1.1 and any instance of SOAP 1.2 request-response. I cannot live with disallowing anonymous [destination] everywhere except where required in responses. There is no way we can say that there are no other cases where the message destination "cannot be located with a meaningful IRI." I'll also repeat that I really cannot live with, and will likely formally object to, referring to HTTP specifically when describing the SOAP 1.2 behavior. However, there is no need to do this (indeed, that would be one basis for objecting). The whole point of SOAP 1.2 (or one of them, anyway) is that it provides binding-independent ways of talking about these things. In this case we can say, e.g., that anonymous [destination] is disallowed in the request message of the request-response MEP (as opposed to talking about the HTTP request message). If we go that route, I would prefer to say ".../InboundMessage" as it says "request message" more precisely, but that's a separate issue [2]. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Feb/0056.html [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing-comments/2006Feb/0000.html
Received on Friday, 10 February 2006 14:55:41 UTC