Comments inline.
> Lei,
>
> Per WS-Addr, except in the case of WSDL req-res MEP when used
> with the
> HTTP-binding, anonymous reply-to means that there is some out-of-band
> mechanism to deliver the message. In case of WSDL req-res and
> HTTP-binding, anon reply-to means the http-response message.
>
> In you example, it is a one-way MEP, so the anon URI does not
> mean that
> it is the HTTP-response message back-channel. In fact for one-way MEP
> over HTTP, at least when using SOAP 1.1 with WS-I Basic
> Profile 1.x (and
> there isn't a standard SOAP 1.2 one-way MEP, yet) the service
> must not
> send a SOAP response as the HTTP entity-body in the HTTP response
> message. Therefore, for the one-way MEP case, with or without
> intermediaries, the anon ackTo implies that there is some out-of-band
> mechanism established for the acks or the acks are sent in
> response to
> the request-for-ack synchronous (req-res MEP message). So why
> would the
> intermediaries have to keep the connection open? Furthermore, it is
> difficult to talk about intermediaries (at least in my mind) when
> talking about the WSDL description (and the MEPs described
> therein) as
> WSDL does not deal with intermediaries at all. The
> description is from
> the point of view of the service.
>
> But I think it is certainly worthwhile to discuss what 'out-of-band'
> means, if anything, for anon acksTo in the case of one-way
> MEP and HTTP
> binding (and other bindings). This could very well result in
> an interop
> problem.
Agreed. If you look at my original mail for raising the issue, I
mentioned that there is an implicit assumption that "sending back
on http response channel" is this out-of-band mechanism for
communicating acks. That is what I am objecting.
> I hope I got the scenario right. If not, apologies.
>
> BTW, I did not understand what you meant by:
> "... Thus, the introduction of an anonymous AcksTo is now a
> backwards-incompatible change. ..."
> Can you pl. elaborate? Backwards-incompatible change to what?
>
Perhaps backwards-incompatible is not the right word here. What I'm
referring to is that the introduction of anonymous AcksTo makes WS-RX
unable to work with intermediaries that are pre WS-RX (thus not
backwards compatible)
Lei
> Thx!
>
> -Anish
> --
>
> Lei Jin wrote:
> > Doug:
> >
> >> w.r.t. your intermediary examining the wsa:ReplyTo - be a bit
> >> careful
> > here.
> >> The presence of a wsa:ReplyTo does not imply anything
> about the MEP
> > (sadly :-(.
> >> There are cases where a wsa:ReplyTo could be present even for a
> >> one-way
> >> message. And the presence of an anonymous wsa:ReplyTo
> does not guarantee
> >> that anything will flow back on the http response flow.
> >
> > Let me try to clarify myself. What's important here is not
> the fact I
> > examine wsa:ReplyTo to figure out what MEP this is. Let's
> say there is
> > an intermediary that is aware that the MEP is one way
> (perhaps through
> > the WSDL, etc). And this intermediary is not WS-RX aware. So it
> > decides to send back a 202 and close the http connection before
> > forwarding on the message. This will cause the WS-RX
> protocol to fail
> > since no synchronous ack can be sent back. Thus, the
> introduction of an
> > anonymous AcksTo is now a backwards-incompatible change.
> In order for
> > things to work, all intermediaries will need to be WS-RX
> aware and keep
> > connections open in case synchronous acks need to be sent back.
> >
> > Lei
>
