- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2006 16:13:28 -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: <43F0F678.2050407@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. > If you don't like the indirection, take it out. Say "in a request message" instead talking about "except when required ...". Same difference as far as I'm concerned. > 3.5.2 seems to apply restrictions to SOAP request-response beyond > the desired definition of the HTTP binding. > 3.5.2 discusses SOAP 1.2 in terms of SOAP 1.2. It still allows for the change in the rules for HTTP behavior (from undefined to explicitly disallowing anonymous for requests). It just applies those changes consistently. As I understand it, the logic behind the change in HTTP is that anonymous should be disallowed because there's an address available, and anonymous is meant for cases where there isn't one. If that's right, then (by that logic) anonymous should be disallowed in /any/ request in the SOAP 1.2 request-response. You can't define request-response without having an address for the request (i.e., .../ImmediateDestination). > > > 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 <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 21:14:02 UTC