RE: What problem are we trying to solve?

That's looking too closely at the details. After all, if it were not for
the desire to transmit the identifying information, WS-RM would not need
a special URI - it could and would use the existing anonymous URI. 
 
I don't see any need for a slew of new "magic" URIs. I don't like
"magic" values - anonymous is sensible, and none is acceptable, but
encouraging the creation of more is a very bad idea. Magic values
suggest that we got the design wrong and that we need these magic values
to indicate that we're deviating from the original design.
 
Tony Rogers
tony.rogers@ca.com <blocked::mailto:tony.rogers@ca.com> 
 

________________________________

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Wednesday, 4 October 2006 7:11
To: bob@freunds.com
Cc: [WS-A]; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: 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