RE: What problem are we trying to solve?

+1

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295

public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org wrote on 10/04/2006 02:43:27 AM:

> 
> Bob,
> > Doug, 
> > The list is what I heard from the folks on the call.  It is intended
> > to provoke discussion and possibly correction. 
> > The question of priority is if the exposition is the correct 
> > description of the problem to be solved. 
> > There was also discussion of a potential errata that would remove 5.
> > 2.1 which I did not include in my summary. 
> > For now, I would be content to have a well characterized definition 
> > of the problem so that it might be bounded. 
> > Several folks have expressed reservations about synonyms for 
> > anonymous.  If it is intended that anonymous identify a specific 
> > resource (such as the backchannel).  It then would make as much 
> > sense as defining a synonym for www.cnn.com. 
> > More than that, some folks have said that this synonym overloads 
> > replyTo and defines semantics associated with a definition of this 
> > uri that only RM will understand. 
> 
> It doesn't overload ReplyTo any more than switching from 
> http://www.cnn.com   to  smtp://cnn.com   overloads it. 
> There are transport level semantics associated with each URI 
> that relate to how the message is transferred from one endpoint 
> to the other. The semantics of ReplyTo are totally unchanged when 
> the RM anon URI is used.  It still means it contains the EPR of 
> the destination endpoint for replies.  If I have an EPR with 
> an address of http://www.cnn.com  but it also includes a policy 
> assertion that tells it to use RM - meaning send a CreateSequence 
> first, add a Sequence header to the app msg, and then send a 
> TerminateSequence, this one policy assertion greatly changed the 
> MEP used to transfer the message but it did not redefine the 
> semantics of ReplyTo - did it?  I would hope not.  The 
> RM anon URI is no different - it controls the transport layer 
> interaction between two endpoints - it _does not_ redefine 
> ReplyTo in any way. 
> 
> > Do you disagree with the exposition?  Does the RM redefined URI 
> > convey identifying or parametric information or does it not? 
> 
> It doesn't matter :-)  Whatever information it may or may not 
> choose to convey is outside the scope of what WSA or ReplyTo 
> needs to understand.  All that needs to be acknowledged is that 
> its a special URI (just like anon and none), let the piece of 
> code that wants to understand that URI deal with it.  All the 
> soap stack needs to know is who to give the message to when it 
> sees a special URI.  In the anon/none case it gives it to WSA 
> aware code and in the RManonURI case it gives it to RM code. 
> We're not asking for WSA to understand RM, we're asking for 
> WSA to provide the hooks for other specs to have the same 
> flexibility that WSA provides for itself. 
> 
> > Thanks 
> > -bob