RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Which version of WS-Addressing spec?

I understand your concern. The benefit you
get from having a generic reference must also be weighed against the
interoperability benefit you mention.  To demonstrate this I will give a
couple of examples.

 

For example, XML 1.0 has a generic
reference to the RFC that defines values for xml:lang and each time that RFC
adds new country/region/language codes this means that the XML spec does NOT
have to revised.  

 

On the other hand I will point out that
one reason for XML 1.1 was that XML 1.0 did not have generic reference to
UNICODE and thus it needed to be updated when UNICODE was changed.  And we
all know how controversial XML 1.1 is.

 

So I agree that there is no easy answer
here.  My original note on this thread was only meant to suggest that we
should also consider the kind of references we want.  Dated ones are
better for short term interoperability but they make the spec more fragile to
changes in the normatively referenced specs.  

 

/paulc

Paul Cotton, Microsoft Canada

17 Eleanor Drive, Nepean, Ontario K2E 6A3

Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329

mailto:

 

From: Green, Alastair
J. [mailto:] 

Sent: September 21, 2005 10:29 AM

To: Doug Davis;


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE:
Which version of WS-Addressing spec?

 

I think that you have to be very careful
about this.

 

The sole purpose of this spec is interoperable reliable messaging. 

 

The markitectural half-truth of
“composable specs” cannot be alchemically converted into a whole
truth to be relied upon for the purposes of interoperability.

Any given set of versions of the composable specs may be truly composable (to
ensure this at some basic level is why WS-I exists), but this cannot be
assumed.

 

In the case of any one spec, it is the
job of the spec to create an island of composability by narrowing its
references to specific version(s). If this is not done then the resulting spec
is open to implementation variation which could be (almost certainly will be)
lethal to interoperation. If there are multiple versions specified then
implementations can state the matrix of interop that they will support. If
there are no specified versions then the statement “implements the
interoperable protocol” becomes close to meaningless (will only be true
by sheer luck).

 

Alastair

 

Alastair J. Green

CEO and CTO

Choreology
Ltd

68 Lombard Street

London EC3V 9LJ

www.choreology.com

 

+44 207 868 2316 (office)

+44 870 739 0051 (fax)

+44 795 841 2107 (mobile)

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Doug Davis
[mailto:] 

Sent: 21 September 2005 14:21

To: 

Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE:
Which version of WS-Addressing spec?

 

Do we really need to point to a specific version of WS-Addr?  I
thought that one 

of the
composibility aspects of these WS specs was that we wouldn't need to change

all of
them just because one of them was modified.  As long as the basic ideas of

WSA
(that RM needs) don't change - like EPRs, MI Headers... can't we just talk
about 

them in
generic terms and let the implementations decide which version they want to

support?
 Should one that (for some reason) can't step up to the latest WSA be
tagged 

as
non-RM compliant?  I don't think it should.  It may not be as
interoperable, but that's 

a
different story. 

I've
seen other specs go thru quite a lot of pain because different specs they're 

composing
with point to different levels of WSA - and they actually try to support 

more
than one at the same time - what a hassle. 

-Doug

 

  
  
Anish Karmarkar
  <> 

  
09/20/2005
  04:01 PM 

  
  
  
   

    
    
To

    
    
    
wsrx <> 

    
   

   

    
    
cc

    
    
    
 

    
   

   

    
    
Subject

    
    
    
[ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Which version of WS-Addressing spec?

    
   

  
  
 

  
   

    
    
 

    
    
    
 

    
   

  
  

  
 

Title:
Which version of WS-Addressing spec?

Description:

Page 25, lines 664-665 at [1] says:

"WS-ReliableMessaging faults MUST include as
the [action] property the 

default fault action URI defined in the version of
WS-Addressing used in 

the message."

This can be interpreted as any version of WS-Addressing
is allowed with 

WSRM. WSRM spec should specify which version of
WS-Addressing is used by 

the spec.

A related issue is that:

On page 25, lines 664-666 talk about the default 

"http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/08/addressing/fault"
as the Fault 

[action] property. This default is defined only
for the SOAP binding and 

is meant to be used with WS-Addr faults not WSRM
faults.

Justification:

Without clearly indicating which version of
WS-Addressing is 

required/used by the spec, independent implementation
will not 

interoperate. WS-Addressing specification has
changed substantially (in 

certain sections/artifacts of the WS-Addressing
spec) over the years.

Target: core

Type: design

Proposal:

Use the CR version of the spec [2] (in this
paragraph as well as the 

normative reference for the spec) for now and make
changes as the 

addressing spec transitions through the process of
becoming a REC. Based 

on the WS-Addr schedule and WSRM schedule, WS-Addr
is slated to become a 

REC before WSRM is final.

For the related issue:

change line 664 from --

"WS-ReliableMessaging faults MUST include as
the [action] property the 

default fault"

to --

"WS-ReliableMessaging faults MUST include as
the [action] property as 

defined by WS-Addressing [ref]."

and

delete lines 665-667

Related issues: none

[1] 

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14548/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf

[2]
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/CR-ws-addr-core-20050817/