RE: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)

Dave,

 

Perhaps it's just me, but the sense of what we're trying to say gets
lost by the time you're crafted it into a proposal.

 

3.5.1 looks accurate, but starts the reader on a treasure hunt instead
of directly giving them the answer to this question.  3.5.2 seems to
apply restrictions to SOAP request-response beyond the desired
definition of the HTTP binding.

 

I prefer Paco's formulation - directly state that for HTTP, anonymous
means no more and no less than the HTTP response.  I'd put his proposed
text directly into the (currently empty) 3.5.  And declare victory.

 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of David Hull
Sent: Sunday, February 12, 2006 10:08 PM
To: Francisco Curbera
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: CR20 proposal (consistent wording)

 

Francisco Curbera wrote: 

As I said in my earlier mail, this would be the text to include in
section
3.5:
 
"When the HTTP transport is in use, the anonymous URI is only used to
indicate the use of the HTTP reply channel so it can only appear as the
value of the [destination] property in reply messages."
  

To be more concrete (insertions in italics):

3.5 Use of Anonymous Address in SOAP
 
3.5.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP
 
When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified  
for the response endpoint then there is no change to the SOAP 1.1/ 
HTTP binding. The URI 
"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be specified
for the [destination] property of an HTTP message, except when required
as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of the core.
 
3.5.2 SOAP 1.2
 
When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" is specified  
for the response endpoint and the request is the request part of a  
SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref], then any response  
MUST be the response part of the same SOAP request-response MEP [soap  
1.2 adjuncts ref].  The URI 
"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous" MUST NOT be specified
for the [destination] property of any message in a SOAP request-response
MEP, except when required as a result of the rules in section 3.4 of
the core.

This could be sharpened by saying the server/receiver MUST fault on
receiving a message with such a [destination], instead of saying that
such a [destination] MUST NOT be used but not saying what happens if it
is.



 
Paco
 
 
 
 

                      David Hull

                      <dmh@tibco.com> <mailto:dmh@tibco.com>
To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS

                      Sent by:                        cc:
public-ws-addressing@w3.org

                      public-ws-addressing-req        Subject:  Re: CR20
proposal                                                        
                      uest@w3.org

 

 

                      02/12/2006 02:22 PM

 

 
 
 
 
 
Francisco Curbera wrote:
 
  

	As per Bob's request, and for easier reference, this is a more
detailed
	version of the proposal for closing CR20 that we discussed on
the last
	call:
	 
	Middle of the road approach: retain the defaulting of the To
header to
	anonymous, but re-state (in section 3.2 of the Core spec) that
the use of
	the anonymous URI in the destination field is actually dependent
on the
	interpretation that the transport binding gives to the anonymous
URI. Add
	    

a
  

	note in Section 3.5 of the SOAP spec indicating that for the
case of the
	HTTP transport the anonymous URI is only used to indicate the
use of the
	HTTP reply channel so it can only be used in reply messages.
	 
	 
	    

Could you please state this in the form of an amendment to the text
accepted for section 3.5 in the resolution to CR 15 [1]?  While this
text has not yet been incorporated into the editors' draft yet, I
believe it represents the latest draft of that section.
 
[1]
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085
 
  

	Paco