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
> >
> >
