W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2005

Re: LC review of WS-Addressing

From: Sanjiva Weerawarana <sanjiva@opensource.lk>
Date: Wed, 04 May 2005 18:03:51 +0600
To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@deri.org>
Cc: WS-Description WG <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1115208231.10965.170.camel@localhost.localdomain>

On Tue, 2005-05-03 at 18:05 +0200, Jacek Kopecky wrote:
> Hi all,
> I have reviewed WS-Addressing (you may see my comments at [1]) and I
> have identified two issues that are somewhat related to WSDL.
> First, discussed in [2], is about ReplyTo being required when a reply is
> expected. Currently in WSDL 2 with its only available binding replies
> come back to the requester using the same communication channel, i.e. an
> HTTP request/response, which would make the ReplyTo address being the
> ".../anonymous" URI, which might be overkill. I suggest that ReplyTo is
> made optional (with the default being ".../anonymous" which IMO doesn't
> change the intent of the spec but makes many messages smaller. 8-)
> I suggest that we (the WS-Desc WG) comment that ReplyTo should be
> optional even when replies are expected.

What does this have to do with WSDL??

> Second, discussed in [3], is about action being required in all
> WS-Addressing-compliant messages. I believe that the intent of the WSDL
> Operation Name Mapping Requirement (ONMR) is that message bodies
> identify the operation so we don't need action URI (unless that is the
> extension that satisfies the ONMR) because WS-Addressing RECOMMENDS that
> the action URI identify an operation input, output or fault.

The purpose of the action proposal was to address this to make WSDL2 and
WS-Addr more aligned with each other. Its on this week's telecon agenda.

> So there are a few concrete points touching WSDL:
> 1) WS-Addressing seems to imply that interface operations (in
> particular, their inputs, outputs and faults) have stable semantics
> (because action identifies semantics through a WSDL operation) and I
> believe the WS-Description group has said previously that operations
> don't necessarily have semantics assignable to them.

I don't understand this comment (from either WSAddr or WSDL). Can you
clarify please?

> 2) WS-Addressing doesn't formulate the parts about action as an
> extension that would satisfy ONMR, which it probably should to play
> nicely with ONMR.

See other replies.

> 3) WS-Addressing action may be redundant in many scenarios due to other
> means of satisfying ONMR, namely unique elements which seem prevalent.

See other replies.

> I suggest that we decide whether operations have semantics (which would
> be supported by the view that interface extension keeps compatibility,
> which I heard from DaveO on the list) and if they don't, say that to the
> WS-Addressing group, and further I suggest that we suggest that action
> in ws-addressing be made optional and that it be formulated as an
> extension satisfying the ONMR, when used (appropriately).

I'm sorry but I still don't grok the point you are making .. sorry.

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:04:44 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:50 UTC