Re: Who knows what from where?

Francisco Curbera wrote:
>
> Supposedly, if the client knows about RM it also knows about the RM
> anon URI as well and what it implies wrt the use of the backchannel,
> so I really don't see the difference.
The RM anon URI is defined explicitly in the RM spec.  The term
"backchannel" doesn't appear to be defined anywhere.  Leaving the client
to make an inference with respect to an undefined term seems risky, to
say the least.  I think Marc got it right in saying that the RM spec
would have to provide the definition.

Compare:

    * RM says what "http://...wsrm/anonymous?id=...1" means.
    * The policy assertions say I can put that in my response endpoint.

with

    * RM says what "http://...wsrm/anonymous?id=...1" means.
    * The policy assertions say the server can send responses on the
      backchannel
    * RM says, e.g., that in the context of RM, backchannel means
      regular anon or RM anon

In the third bullet, we're basically composing two specs (WSA and RM)
that have a notion of backchannel.  I wonder how this would scale to
composing another spec that also had such a notion.

It seems better to worry about whether something is defined and allowed
than whether it constitutes a "backchannel".


>
> Paco
>
>
>
> *David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>
> 10/23/2006 05:35 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	Who knows what from where?
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Pursuant to CR33:
>
> If I'm a client and I know about WS-RM, and the server says "I support
> WS-RM and you can use 'http://.../RMAnon.*' in a response endpoint",
> then I know immediately that I can use this facility.  If the server
> says "I support WS-RM and I can send responses on the backchannel", then
> I need to know, from somewhere, that "backchannel" in this case is
> referring to the special WS-RM URI family.
>
> Where would this information appear?
>
>
>