- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 14:38:46 -0500
- To: Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>
- Cc: Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>, public-ws-addressing@w3.org, public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
- Message-id: <43F0E046.1080906@tibco.com>
Jonathan Marsh wrote: > 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. > In that case, strike "and no less", which is just a new complication. That leaves the semantics unchanged, and we can declare victory without firing a shot. I would much rather declare victory this way. Special-casing HTTP for SOAP 1.2 is only victory if you abandon the idea that features and properties can apply across protocols. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *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 <mailto:public-ws-addressing@w3.org> > > public-ws-addressing-req Subject: Re: CR20 proposal > > uest@w3.org <mailto: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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 13 February 2006 19:40:36 UTC