It would be nice if it said that - but
I may have missed it.
-Doug
Tom Rutt <> wrote on 09/10/2005
07:31:29 PM:
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>
> > As to the question of why one would use anonymous IRI for wsa:To:
> > WS-Addressing spec actually requires you to do so in certain
cases.
> > Specifically, in the case of the req-res scenario where the
> > wsa:ReplyTo of the request message is an 'anon' IRI the value
of
> > wsa:To of the response message must be 'anon' IRI. See [1]. 'anon'
IRI
> > is also to default for wsa:To, so if there is no value specified
then
> > it is 'anon' IRI.
> >
> > The use of 'anon' IRI in wsa:To message makes sense on the response
> > message in case of SOAP/HTTP. I don't know what it would mean
(or why
> > it would be used) in other cases.
>
> The reason for the default was simplification when the To address
is the
> same as the http "address". That has always been my
interpretation.
>
> Thus anonymous, when mapped to http request, implies whatever URI
is
> being used for that http request.
>
> Tom Rutt
>
> >
> > Doug: I think this (what does 'anon' URI mean for wsa:To) is
a good
> > catch from the perspective of WS-Addressing. It would be fruitful
to
> > provide this as a CR comment.
> >
> > But the wsa:To issue is a more general issue whereas AcksTo is
a
> > specific issue for WSRM.
> >
> > In resolving LC20 [2] WS-Addressing made a specific decision
to not
> > define exactly what 'anon' IRI means in the Core spec and left
it to
> > the binding specs. SOAP binding does define it for ReplyTo and
> > FaultTo, but not for others (I think this is an oversight, but
don't
> > recall the full discussion). IMHO, it would be useful to have
> > WS-Addressing SOAP binding define (or provide guidance on) what
'anon'
> > IRI means for SOAP/HTTP in all cases and not just ReplyTo and
FaultTo.
> > The EndpontReferenceType is meant to be reused by other specs
(WSRM
> > has AcksTo, WS-Eventing has wse:NotifyTo, WS-Notification has
> > wsnt:SubscriptionReference, wsnt:ProducerReference etc) and having
the
> > meaning of 'anon' IRI (which is very useful for SOAP/HTTP) for
all
> > EndpointReferenceTypes (in the context of SOAP/HTTP) would serve
a
> > very useful purpose.
> >
> > But I haven't thought it through, perhaps there are reasons why
> > defining the 'anon' IRI for SOAP/HTTP binding in every case does
not
> > make sense -- in which case, we should define in WSRM spec what
we
> > need (for AcksTo EPR).
> >
> > Comments?
> >
> > -Anish
> > --
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/#formreplymsg
> > [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/lc-issues/#lc20
> >
> > Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Personally, I'm not sure what an anonymous wsa:To means either
:-)
> >> but its allowed, and its actually the default value if wsa:To
is not
> >> specified.
> >> The only similarity I was trying to make was that if WSA
doesn't need
> >> to say what an anonymous wsa:To means then we might not need
to say
> >> what an anonymous AcksTo
> >> means - it could just be obvious. But its 8pm on Friday
and I might
> >> not be thinking straight since I'm also choosing to actually
continue
> >> to work instead of doing something else....sigh
> >> thanks,
> >> -Doug
> >>
> >>
> >> "Yalcinalp, Umit" <>
wrote on 09/09/2005
> >> 07:25:20 PM:
> >>
> >> > I fail to understand the similarity or more simply
why one would
> >> use anonymous IRI
> >> > for "To". Where would you send
the initial message? /dev/null ;-)
> >> > > AcksTo EPR using anon IRI is different,
it is piggybacking on
> >> the existing channel
> >> > provided by the binding, similar to ReplyTo and
Fault which
> >> corresponds to a kind
> >> > of "response". Acknowledgement is a
kind of response.
> >> > > --umit
> >> > >
> >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
> >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 3:47 PM
> >> > To:
> >> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon'
URI mean when
> >> used in AcksTo
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Right - it talks about ReplyTo and FaultTo but
not "To". So, we
> >> can either assume
> >> > that it is implicitly talking about "To"
which means wecan make
> >> the same
> >> > assumption for AcksTo. Or we can assume
that silence on "To"
> >> implies something
> >> > else - like "its obvious". dunno. Whatever
that assumption is, we
> >> can probably
> >> > carry it over to the AcksTo EPR :-)
> >> > thanks,
> >> > -Doug
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Yalcinalp, Umit" <>
> >> > 09/09/2005 06:24 PM
> >> >
> >> > To
> >> >
> >> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <>
> >> >
> >> > cc
> >> >
> >> > Subject
> >> >
> >> > RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean
when used in AcksTo
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Hmm. I am wondering whether we are looking at
different versions
> >> of the soap
> >> > binding spec. The current editor's copy [1] has
the following
> >> statement in Section
> >> > 3.5 (Anish was suggesting adding basically a similar
language to
> >> our spec in this thread).
> >> > > {
> >> > When "http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/anonymous"
is specified
> >> as the address
> >> > of the ReplyTo or FaultTo EPR, the underlying
SOAP protocol
> >> binding provides a
> >> > channel to the specified endpoint. Any underlying
protocol binding
> >> supporting the
> >> > SOAP request-response message exchange pattern
provides such a
> >> channel. For
> >> > instance, the SOAP 1.2 HTTP binding[SOAP 1.2 Part
2: Adjuncts]
> >> puts the reply
> >> > message in the HTTP response.
> >> > }
> >> > > > --umit
> >> > > [1]
> >> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2004/ws/addressing/ws-addr-soap.html?
> >>
> >> > content-type=text/html;%20charset=utf-8#soaphttp
> >> >
> >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
> >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 1:57 PM
> >> > To:
> >> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon'
URI mean when
> >> used in AcksTo
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I saw no mention of what an anonymous wsa:To means
in the soap
> >> binding spec - but
> >> > perhaps I missed it. If not, then they're
silent on it.
> >> > thanks,
> >> > -Doug
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> > "Yalcinalp, Umit" <>
> >> > 09/09/2005 04:43 PM
> >> >
> >> > To
> >> >
> >> > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <>
> >> >
> >> > cc
> >> >
> >> > Subject
> >> >
> >> > RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon' URI mean
when used in AcksTo
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Doug,
> >> > > I think it is incorrect to characterize
that WS-Addressing is
> >> silent. It just
> >> > defers the definition to the binding where it
belongs to the
> >> extent of how the
> >> > definition is used for WS-Addressing purposes
only.
> >> > > I would be very much in favor of (a)
or (b) for our own spec.
> >> If (b) can not be
> >> > coordinated with WS-Addressing wg (we need to
do that rather fast
> >> due to the
> >> > timelines of WS-Addressing) , we should definitely
explore (a).
> >> > > Cheers,
> >> > > --umit
> >> > >
> >> > From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
> >> > Sent: Friday, Sep 09, 2005 11:42 AM
> >> > To:
> >> > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: What does 'anon'
URI mean when
> >> used in AcksTo
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Is WS-Addressing's silence on what it means to
use the anonymous
> >> IRI in the wsa:To
> >> > header mean that it should be obvious to the reader?
If so, then
> >> perhaps we can
> >> > take the same approach to its use in other places
that
> >> WS-Addressing is silent as
> >> > well - for example, AcksTo - and say nothing and
assume its
> >> obvious to the reader.
> >> > thanks
> >> > -Doug
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Anish Karmarkar <>
wrote on 09/09/2005
> >> 02:20:12 AM:
> >> >
> >> > > As discussed on the call today, I'm raising
an issue about the
> >> meaning
> >> > > of 'anon' URI when used in AcksTo URI.
> >> > >
> >> > > Title:
> >> > >
> >> > > What does 'anon' URI mean when used in AcksTo
EPR?
> >> > >
> >> > > Description:
> >> > >
> >> > > WS-Addressing Core [1], section 2.1 says
the following about
> >> 'anon':
> >> > >
> >> > > "Some endpoints cannot be located with
a meaningful IRI; this
> >> URI is
> >> > > used to allow such endpoints to send and
receive messages. The
> >> precise
> >> > > meaning of this URI is defined by the binding
of Addressing to a
> >> > > specific protocol."
> >> > >
> >> > > WS-Addressing SOAP binding [2] defines what
the 'anon' address
> >> means
> >> > > when used with ReplyTo and FaultTo in SOAP
and SOAP/HTTP
> >> binding. It
> >> > > does not say anything about what it means
when used in other
> >> headers
> >> > > such as AcksTo.
> >> > >
> >> > > Justification:
> >> > >
> >> > > WSRM defines AcksTo element of type EndpointReferenceType
and
> >> allows
> >> > > 'anon' URI for the address. But the meaning
of such an anon
> >> address is
> >> > > not defined anywhere.
> >> > >
> >> > > Target:
> >> > >
> >> > > core, soap
> >> > >
> >> > > Type:
> >> > >
> >> > > design
> >> > >
> >> > > Proposal:
> >> > >
> >> > > This can be resolved by:
> >> > >
> >> > > a) Adding a stmt similar to WS-Addressing
SOAP binding.
> >> Something like:
> >> > >
> >> > > "When "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous"
is
> >> specified as
> >> > > the address of the wsrm:AcksTo EPR, the underlying
SOAP protocol
> >> binding
> >> > > provides a channel to the specified endpoint.
Any underlying
> >> protocol
> >> > > binding supporting the SOAP request-response
message exchange
> >> pattern
> >> > > provides such a channel. For instance, the
SOAP 1.2 HTTP
> >> binding[SOAP
> >> > > 1.2 Part 2: Adjuncts] puts the reply message
in the HTTP response."
> >> > >
> >> > > OR
> >> > >
> >> > > b) we could ask the WS-Addressing WG to fix
their SOAP binding to
> >> > > include not just ReplyTo and FaultTo EPRs
but any EPR when used
> >> in the
> >> > > context of SOAP/HTTP binding.
> >> > >
> >> > > I prefer that we do (b). If they refuse,
we can do (a)
> >> > >
> >> > > Related issues:
> >> > > i012
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: ;
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732
774 5133
>
>
