RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc

Can we then safely say that anonymous will have the same implications
regardless of the transport we use? Based on its definition, one may send
back a response t anonymous address and still be in the same MEP - think a
JMS installation that takes anonymous for "the destination provided by the
MOM infrastructure". We are making risky generalizations here.

Paco



                                                                                                                                        
                      "David Orchard"                                                                                                   
                      <dorchard@bea.com        To:       Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS                                             
                      >                        cc:       "WS-Addressing" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>                                  
                                               Subject:  RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc                                          
                      01/19/2006 06:34                                                                                                  
                      PM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        




And I believe that you won't get to consensus on making 3.4.2 soap 1.2
HTTP specific.  At least 3 people have objected to that notion.

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 3:22 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: WS-Addressing; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: i67 and i68 proposal for WSDL doc
>
> Text along these lines would be clearer. I also think 3.4.2 should be
HTTP
> specific (and I updated the text accordingly).
>
> =================================================
>
> 3.4.1 SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding
>
> WS-Addressing changes the SOAP 1.1/HTTP binding used when the value of
the
> response endpoint EPR contains an address different from the
WS-Addressing
> anonymous URI. In this case, the receiver of a message MUST use a
binding
> that supports not returning a SOAP envelope in the HTTP response (such
as
> [URI for binding doc]) unless a different behavior is mandated for the
URI
> specified in the response endpoint EPR address by another
specification
> that is supported by the endpoint.  Absent such a requirement by
another
> specification, if the value of the response endpoint EPR contains an
> address that is different from the WS-Addressing anonymous URI, then
the
> outbound message MUST be sent using a separate connection and using
the
> address value specified by response endpoint.
>
> 3.4.2 SOAP 1.2/HTTP binding
>
> When the value of the response endpoint EPR contains the anonymous
address
> and the request is the request part of a SOAP request-response MEP
[soap
> 1.2 adjuncts ref], then the response must be the response part the
same
> SOAP request-response MEP [soap 1.2 adjuncts ref].  When the value of
the
> response endpoint EPR contains a value different from the anonymous
> address
> then any response message is not part of the mep that the request
message
> is in.

Received on Thursday, 19 January 2006 23:48:50 UTC