RE: Who knows what from where?

Couple of points:
 - in order to use the RManonURI you obviously need to know about the RM 
spec as that is where it is defined.  Whether you use all of the RM spec 
or just certain features doesn't matter - its all part of the RM spec - 
all that matters is that you follow the rules defined within the spec.
- the issue you're talking about is not a WSA issue, its an RM issue.  Its 
RM's job to decide how it wanted to advertise support for its various 
features - not WSA's.

thanks,
-Doug




Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com> 
10/27/2006 08:24 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com>
cc
David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, 
"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, 
"public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org" 
<public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org>
Subject
RE: Who knows what from where?






Yes, but I believe you did represent that the RM anon URI would be used 
without RM. That in theory means the endpoints involved are not 
advertising any RM capabilities. So why is the use of the RM anon URI in 
the absence of RM expected to work? How can anything done with respect to 
CR33 address that? 
 
If we provide a way to advertise that the backchannel is to be used but 
without mention of anything to do with the wsa:Anonymous URI and no way to 
indicate the RM anon URI is to be used it doesn?t seem like anything will 
have been accomplished.
 
From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2006 12:59 PM
To: Rogers, Tony
Cc: David Hull; Francisco Curbera; public-ws-addressing@w3.org; 
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: RE: Who knows what from where?
 

I must have been misunderstood - clearly an impl that wants to use the 
RManonURI needs to know about the RM spec.  :-) 
-Doug 



"Rogers, Tony" <Tony.Rogers@ca.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
10/24/2006 01:36 PM 


To
Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "David Hull" <dmh@tibco.com> 
cc
<public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, <public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org> 
Subject
RE: Who knows what from where?
 








The part that worries me about this was Doug's recent suggestion that the 
RM URI was supposed to be "understood" (for some value of "understood") by 
non-RM-aware participants. I have no difficulty with those who are 
RM-aware, because they are expected to understand. I do not, however, 
understand how something that is not aware of RM can "understand" the URI. 

  
Tony Rogers 
CA, Inc 
Senior Architect, Development 
tony.rogers@ca.com 
co-chair UDDI TC at OASIS 
co-chair WS-Desc WG at W3C 

From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org on behalf of Francisco Curbera
Sent: Wed 25-Oct-06 2:21
To: David Hull
Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org; public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
Subject: Re: Who knows what from where?


I don't think every spec that uses the (or a) backchannel needs to define 
it, or even use the word itself. As long as WS-A is clear about what 
'backchannel' means for the protocols at hand, and the binding of WS-A to 
each new protocol with backchannel capabilities defines it as well, 
clients are ok. Again, clients don't go fishing for random URLs, so they 
don't need to check them for "backchannel-ness". Instead, clients decide 
to support a set of specs (WS-A, RM, etc.) that define policy assertions 
and URLs among many other things. A client is supposed to understand what 
those definitions mean, otherwise it should not use them. 

Paco 


David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> 
10/24/2006 10:51 AM 
 


To
Francisco Curbera/Watson/IBM@IBMUS 
cc
"public-ws-addressing@w3.org" <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>, 
public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org 
Subject
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?