Re: What problem are we trying to solve?

Bob,
 A couple of points:

- A4 - if I'm reading your text right, I believe you're saying that other 
specs can define their own replyTo header.  And this is true.  However, 
this means that WSA is extensible by allowing people to avoid WSA.  Funny 
:-)

- Despite all of the talk around CR33, the issue is not about transmitting 
identifying information.  Nor is it about whether or not identifying 
information should be placed in the URI or in some Reference 
Parameter/Property.  The issue around CR33 is whether or not WSA will 
allow other specs to define new 'special' non-addressable URIs and allow 
them to be used in the wsa:ReplyTo/FaultTo.  That's it.  It doesn't matter 
what the semantics of those URIs are, it doesn't matter how people are 
going to use them - its much simpler than that.  Can other specs do 
exactly what WSA did and define new URIs?  Any discussion about whether or 
not a spec made the right choice to do that is not relevant.  WSA needs to 
answer the very simple question from a more abstract point of view and 
once that answer is found then I think everything else will fall into 
place.

So, does the WSA WG think that no other spec, for all time, will ever need 
to define a new special non-addressable URI that may be used in 
ReplyTo/FaultTo?  (like ws-rm or ws-discovery did)

thanks,
-Doug





"Bob Freund" <bob@freunds.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
10/03/2006 09:01 AM

To
"[WS-A]" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
cc

Subject
What problem are we trying to solve?






This is a list of the results, as I heard them, of our discussion on 
2006-10-02 related to our response to CR33
 
Exposition:
It seems that the desire inferred by the issue is that an endpoint would 
like to transmit identifying information (or perhaps some other parametric 
information) in a one way message, and that one way message is intended to 
be used to ?open the backchannel? upon which may be transmitted 
information that is determined in part by the identifying or parametric 
information transmitted in the originating message.  In the specific use 
case presented, the issue originator proposes that this identifying or 
parametric information be passed in the replyTo uri as a special form of 
?anonymous?.  CR33 states that the WS-Addressing WSDL binding CR document 
would create interoperability issues with their implementation since it 
does not permit a form of anonymous other than the literal ?anonymous? to 
be represented in WSDL.
 
In the WS-Addressing Teleconference of 2006-10-02, there was a 
brainstorming session intended to clarify exactly what problem the 
WS-Addressing working group was trying to solve related to its resolution 
of CR33 since several proposals related to a direct response to CR33 have 
failed as yet to gain consensus.
 
Alternatives mentioned: (please feel free to come up with more if you have 
a better idea)
 
A1) During the progress of the WS-Addressing working group, a feature 
known as Reference Properties was removed from the original submission. If 
this were to be added back, then this could be used to convey such 
identifying or parametric information.  This would imply changes to both 
rec level specifications as well as the WSDL binding.  It is not clear if 
these might be ?breaking changes?.
 
A2) The WS-Addressing specifications include a feature known as Reference 
Parameters which are created by the epr minter which are considered to be 
?opaque? to all but the minter.  Outside of the WS-Addressing ?layer? 
there may be no such constraint.  Reference Parameters might be used to 
convey this identifying or parametric information.  Note that there is not 
general agreement that WS-Addressing is a ?layer? or if it is a set of kit 
parts which may be used at any layer. This might imply a clarifying change 
to WS-Addressing specifications.
 
A3) WS-Addressing includes a feature known as ?From? which contains a uri. 
 There are no behavioral constraints imposed by ?From? and potentially 
anything that might be represented as a uri might be conveyed. This might 
imply a clarifying change to WS-Addressing specifications.
 
A4) WS-Addressing defined a limited set of special URLs which mean 
specific things to WS-Addressing when used in replyTo.  These are 
?anonymous? and ?none?.  If the behavior specified by WS-Addressing is not 
desired, then the authors of other specifications might specify their own 
forms of replyTo semantics appropriate to their application without 
WS-Addressing implications.  This would imply that CR33 be closed with no 
action.
 
A5) It was suggested that there is wide latitude in what might be 
contained in a SOAP header and the authors might be able to use such a 
means to convey the desired identifying or parametric information. This 
would imply that CR33 be closed with no action.
 
A6) WS-Addressing Core and SOAP binding are fine as-is, but we just need 
to fix the WSDL binding or perhaps come up with a WSDL cum policy related 
change.  For proposals related to this alternative, please refer to the 
issue list. 
 
For the purposes of this thread please identify in the subject line the 
alternative A[1-n] referenced or ?exposition? if you feel the problem 
statement needs improvement.
 
Thanks
-bob