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
>
>
