Re: Was resolution of CR4 nullified by resolution of CR15?

 > (Editorial nit: Could we say "this binding assigns ... for the
 > [destination]." instead of "this specification assigns ... for the
 > [destination] in this binding."?)

Sure.

CR4 was about having the ability for AcksTo (in WSRX) to reuse the 
'anon' address without having to define new things. Previous definition 
of 'anon' was scoped only to ReplyTo and FaultTo. CR4 resolved this by 
saying any EPRType with 'anon' address mean the same thing. I don't 
think your wordings captures that. If I missed it, apologies (can you 
point me to it). Your new text talks about response endpoints. I would 
not call AcksTo a response endpoint.

-Anish
--

David Hull wrote:
> The resolution for CR15 says "an anonymous response endpoint in a 
> request refers to the response message" and further delimits this to 
> SOAP1.1/HTTP and SOAP 1.2 request-response.
> 
> I believe the latest cut at CR18 (what does anonymous [destination] 
> mean, as opposed to CR20, when can it default to what) says "except 
> where you have to have an anonymous [destination] because of the reply 
> rules, we don't say anything about anonymous [destination]."
> 
> As I understand CR4, WS-RX would like to be able to say "an anonymous 
> acksTo means send acks in the response message to any requests you 
> get".  If this is correct, there are a number of potential issues to be 
> worked out with this approach.  For example, can I send back acks for 
> one sequence in response to a request for another sequence?  To a 
> one-way message?  To a request belonging to no sequence at all?  Clearly 
> these are out of scope for WSA, but WSA needs to define the terminology 
> for WS-RX to talk about this (or at least it would be helpful if it did).
> 
> I believe the key requirement here is to be able to send back acks in 
> HTTP responses (in the case of SOAP 1.1/HTTP), SOAP 1.2 responses (in 
> the case of SOAP 1.2) request-response, and maybe in the 
> otherwise-unused response message in a one-way message sent using SOAP 
> 1.2 request-response.
> 
> I think it might be useful here to define a single term for "the HTTP 
> response message of SOAP 1.1/HTTP or the response message of a SOAP 1.2 
> request/response."   I'll use "underlying response message" for lack of 
> better.  I don't think "back-channel" quite works here because we're 
> talking about a message and not a channel.  I tried writing the proposed 
> text below using "back-channel' and the result was less direct.  Someone 
> else may be able to do better.
> 
> Given this definition
> 
>     * CR 15 becomes "an anonymous response endpoint in a request refers
>       to the underlying response message"
>     * CR 18 remains pretty much as it is, since it's talking about
>       anonymous in requests, not responses.
>     * CR 4 is resolved by the definition of the term "underlying
>       response message"  for other specs to refer to
>     * WS-RX then talks about when and how to use said underlying
>       response message for acks
> 
> Proposed text (for CR 4 and 15 -- CR 18/20 would have to go in as a 
> separate change):
> 
> 3.5 Use of Anonymous Address in SOAP
> 
> In cases where the underlying protocol provides a request-response
> facility natively, the term /underlying response message/ refers to the
> response message of this facility.  In particular, in the context of
> SOAP 1.1/HTTP, the underlying response message is simply the HTTP response
> message.  In the context of the SOAP 1.2 request-response MEP [soap 1.2
> adjuncts ref], the underlying response message is the response part of
> the same request-response message exchange as the request.
> 
> When a response endpoint with "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
> as its [address] is used to send a response, this response MUST be sent
> in the underlying response message.  As this is normal behavior for SOAP 1.1/HTTP,
> the use of such a response endpoint has no effect on the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding.
> 
> Note the use of "message exchange" (instance) as opposed to "MEP" 
> (class) in the above.
> 
> I believe this maintains the resolution to CR 15 and (I hope) allows for 
> WS-RX to talk about using the underlying response message for acks.
> 
> FWIW, I believe CR 18 can be addressed along the lines of the 
> amalgamated proposal by appending a paragraph like the following, 
> offered as a friendly amendment (the second paragraph is taken directly 
> from Anish's email):
> 
> When such an anonymous response endpoint is used for a response, the rules in
> section 3.4 of the WS-Addressing Core dictate that the [destination] property
> of the response MUST be "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous".  In
> this case, the anonymous address refers to the use of the underlying response
> message.
> 
> Outside of this usage, this specification assigns no particular 
> semantics to the use of "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
> for the [destination] property in this binding.
> 
> 
> (Editorial nit: Could we say "this binding assigns ... for the 
> [destination]." instead of "this specification assigns ... for the 
> [destination] in this binding."?)
> 
> 
> Yalcinalp, Umit wrote:
> 
>> 
>>
>>  
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
>>>[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of 
>>>Anish Karmarkar
>>>Sent: Monday, Feb 13, 2006 5:16 PM
>>>To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org 
>>>Subject: Was resolution of CR4 nullified by resolution of CR15?
>>>
>>>
>>>While working on the 'amalgamated proposal' for CR20, I 
>>>realized that we 
>>>removed the text that we added/changed for CR4 [1], as a 
>>>resolution of 
>>>CR15 [2]. Is that correct, or am I just looking at the incorrect ed. 
>>>versions?
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>It seems to me that this is an oversight and we did not see how the
>>resolutions will trip into each other. 
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>The resolution for CR4 is quite important for WSRX (to allow 
>>>things like 
>>>AcksTo with 'anon' address.) 
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Yes, this is why I reported this in the first place. Thanks for catching
>>it! I like the original wording which got discarded and we need to
>>retain the definition. 
>>
>>  
>>
>>>If I'm looking at the right version and 
>>>this wasn't inadvertent, then I would like to raise an issue 
>>>to add the 
>>>resolution of CR4 back in the SOAP binding spec.
>>>
>>>{perhaps this is what Bob/Marc were asking about regd. issue 
>>>CR15 on the 
>>>call -- the 'such as/example' that was missing}
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>I agree that we have a problem here. Probably we need to define
>>"response endpoint" and build the semantics into the defn appropriately.
>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>>>-Anish
>>>--
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>Bob, can we get this to the agenda soon? 
>>
>>--umit
>>
>>  
>>
>>>[1] 
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0111
>>>[2] 
>>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2006Jan/0085
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>    
>>>
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>

Received on Monday, 20 February 2006 20:40:15 UTC