Re: Proposal for CR33

Doug Davis wrote:
> I guess I'm still not clear why the text around this WSDL marker can't
> simply be reworded to state that its to indicate whether or not the
> server supports async responses.  I know some people are worried about
> the definition of 'async' but is that really something we couldn't
> work through? 
We spent quite a bit of time and brain-sweat in the "Async Task Force"
trying to get a handle on this.  Instead, IMHO, we got a handle on
several smaller and more directly useful issues and fed the work
directly back to the appropriate WGs (WSA, XMLP and probably WSDL).

Personally, I'm very leery of trying to define something like "supports
async responses", because it seems to lead very quickly to questions of
what async /is/ as opposed to what processors /do/ (beyond "support
async responses").

As far as I can tell (but I won't claim to understand this issue in full
detail) the actual behavior can be described either with the existing
elements or with new elements that don't contradict what's already in
the WSDL binding.  As I read it, the binding only restricts the use of
response endpoints.  If you're using a response endpoint ([reply
endpoint] or [fault endpoint]) you should follow the existing rules.  If
it's a different endpoint, you're free to do what you want, cribbing as
much of WSA as makes sense.
> To me, the use of the exact string representing the WSA anon URI is
> not the important aspect of this marker, its the async-ness.  And this
> would be true even if RM didn't define its own anon URI.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *Jonathan Marsh <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
> Sent by: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
>
> 09/11/2006 02:37 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: Proposal for CR33
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> I still summarize the core of the problem as the RM WG defining
> anonymous-like functionality yet insisting that WS-Addressing provide
> descriptive capabilities of RM-specific capabilities.  I continue to
> find it beyond distasteful to put RM-specific description hooks in our
> non-RM-dependent description capability.
>  
> The argument that WS-A allows anonymous-type behavior outside the WS-A
> anonymous URI is not compelling in the least.  In hindsight, we
> shouldn't have been so accommodating to give you a loaded gun.  But
> now that we have, I don't feel compelled to help you pull the trigger.
>  Instead, I hope to advise you on WS-A compatible ways to accomplish
> your scenarios.
>  
> As I understand it, the RM pseudo-anonymous URI serves two purposes --
> it identifies the anonymous URI as the destination for the (usually
> response) message, and it carries a sequence identifier to facilitate
> future communication with the endpoint.  These are two separate tasks,
> and the former seems completely duplicative of the WS-A anonymous URI.
>  Complications arise when the same functionality is given two or more
> syntaxes.  If at all possible, you should use one syntax.  I think the
> WS-A anonymous URI should be used as the endpoint address in these
> scenarios.
>  
> The additional functionality of communicating a sequence identifier
> maps nicely to the reference parameter functionality provided by WS-A.
>  To date I have not heard, nor can I imagine, a compelling reason not
> to use reference parameters.  The arguments floated so far have been
> weak:
>  
> 1)       Identifiers need to be put in the URI.  Just because the
> sequence identifier is an "identifier" and WS-A recommends against
> putting endpoint identification information in a reference parameter
> is no reason -- because the sequence identifier does not identify the
> endpoint -- it identifies the sequence. Mashing this information
> inappropriately into the address URI disguises the actual address --
> which is why these pseudo-anonymous URIs are invisible to wsaw:Anonymous.
> 2)       Reference parameters are always opaque.  The opacity of
> reference parameters is no different than the opacity of query
> parameters.  One should be able to use them opaquely in generic
> contexts, but that doesn't prevent one from documenting the internal
> structure and allowing a smarter client from manipulating that
> structure.  Many web sites such as local.live.com document their query
> parameters for those who want additional functionality beyond generic
> link-clicking.  Actually, WS-RM engages in just such documentation in
> providing a URI template.  Surely you can't object to an EPR template
> instead?
>  
> As a consequence, I think the WS-A WG should close this issue with no
> action against the WSDL binding spec, and file a comment against WS-RM
> about the lack of composition of the pseudo-anonymous URI with
> wsaw:Anonymous.  We should request that WS-RM use the perfectly
> adequate facilities provided by WS-A and not invent new ones.
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug Davis*
> Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2006 11:27 AM*
> To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Proposal for CR33
>  
>
> What you're basically advocating is the removal of the wsaw:Anonymous
> element when RM's URI template is used - while to someone who would
> only use "optional" in there anyway wouldn't really care, I suspect
> people who want to use "required" might have a problem with that.  A
> WSA-only client may want to see wsaw:Anonymous=required to know that
> it must use WSA's anon.  While a RM+WSA client seeing that same WSDL
> element would correctly interpret it to mean that RM's anon is
> prohibited.  Given that WSA core spec allows for other specs to define
> anonymous-like URIs, it makes sense to me that this WSDL element
> should allow for those situations.
>
> To me this element should talk about the asynchronous support of the
> server.  However, if the WG really wants to keep it focused on the
> specific URI itself then maybe another option would be to add another
> value for this wsdl element.  Something that means "anon-like
> required" - so its similar to "required" but allows for other possible
> values as long as they are non-addressable.  This gives people to
> ability to really be picky and just allow WSA's anon, but also support
> others.   (just brainstorming here)
>
> thanks
> -Doug
>
> *"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
>
> 08/30/2006 02:12 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	 
> Subject
> 	RE: Proposal for CR33
>
>
>  
>
>
>   	 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sorry I missed last week's call, but I still haven't seen enough
> evidence, including in last week's minutes, proving that RM's
> anonymous template design is the least of all evils to be
> wholeheartedly in favor of such a proposal.  An EPR with an anonymous
> URI (identifying the address of the service using a standard mechanism
> that works well with wsaw:Anonymous) plus a reference parameter
> (conveying other information to the endpoint which it can use to help
> establish subsequent connections) seems to accomplish all the desired
> goals.
>  
> I also recognize stability of the WS-RM and WS-A WSDL binding specs is
> important, but something has to give here, perhaps the simplest path
> forward is to add the simple advice to WS-RM not to combine RM with
> wsaw:Anonymous="required" because of the unintended side effect of
> prohibiting RM's pseudo-anonymous address.  The resulting loss of
> descriptive capability doesn't seem catastrophic.
>  
>
>
>  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *
> From:* public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Doug Davis*
> Sent:* Wednesday, August 30, 2006 9:54 AM*
> To:* public-ws-addressing@w3.org*
> Subject:* RE: Proposal for CR33
>  
>
> Yup - the entire naming issue is a problem.  Obviously the current
> name "Anonymous" doesn't
> convey what this CR is trying get to.  And as you and other have
> pointed out perhaps "Connection"
> isn't right either.  I think it might be useful to first figure out
> what this WSDL element is trying to
> define and then pick a name.
>
> So, let's start with this....
>
> If the wsaw:ZZZ element were defined with the proper terminology to
> say that this element
> is trying to convey whether or not the endpoint supports the notion of
> sending responses
> (either normal or faults) asynchronously - would that be something
> people could
> support?
>
> (I'm not asking for people to agree to the term 'asynchronously' but
> rather to just the
> idea that everyone knows what it is supposed to mean.  If we can get
> agreement to
> on the idea then we can move on to finding the right wording.)
>
> thanks
> -Doug
>
> *"Jonathan Marsh" <jmarsh@microsoft.com>*
>
> 08/30/2006 12:32 PM
>
> 	 
>
>
> To
> 	"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>,
> <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
> cc
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> Subject
> 	RE: Proposal for CR33
>
>
>
>  
>
>  
>
>
>   	 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Still digesting this, but one comment is simply on the terminology and
> names.  The concept (e.g. the property name) is termed "addressable
> response endpoint" yet the syntax is named wsa:NewConnection.  Perhaps a
> unified name like wsaw:Addressable would be more appropriate.  Although
> "addressable" as a term does seem to include the anonymous URI so maybe
> that doesn't work either...
>
> I'm also concerned the preoccupation with "new connection" is
> SOAP-Binding specific.  The WS-A Core doesn't mention connections at all
> when defining the anonymous URI.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-addressing-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-addressing-
> > request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Anish Karmarkar
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 12:10 AM
> > To: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
> > Cc: Doug Davis
> > Subject: Proposal for CR33
> >
> > Dug and I took an action during this week's call to send out a
> proposal
> > for CR33 [1]. Word version of the proposal is attached. It is a marked
> > up version of section 3.2 [2] of the WS-Addressing 1.0 -- WSDL Binding
> > spec. PDF (diffed and non-diffed  versions) are also attached.
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/cr-issues/Overview.html#cr33
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/2006/CR-ws-addr-wsdl-20060529/#anonelement
>