There may other valid SOAP headers that are entirely
unrelated to RM (or just unrelated to the specific instance of the problematic
RM Sequence) which I believe should rightfully see the day
light.
In the case of CS/STR mU that can not be respected, I
do expect that a fault be raised but I don't see why the other valid parts of
the message be discarded.
-- Sanjay
From: Christopher B Ferris
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, Apr 25, 2006 15:19
PM
To: Patil, Sanjay
Cc: Gilbert Pilz; Paul Fremantle;
wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying
question
What, then, would you have the
processor do? Is it to take a case-by-case assessment?
In the case of the CS/STR, I certainly DO expect that
the entire message fault in this manner.
Cheers,
Christopher
Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email:
blog:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508
377 9295
"Patil, Sanjay"
<> wrote on 04/25/2006 05:51:48 PM:
>
> Doesn't SOAP mU processing model
require that the entire message be
> abandoned and a fault raised if
the mU semantic can not be respected
> by the receiver. I am not sure we
have enough reasons to justify
> triggering such a behavior for RM mU
scenarios!
>
> -- Sanjay
>
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:]
> Sent: Tuesday,
Apr 25, 2006 9:40 AM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: Christopher B
Ferris; wsrx
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying
question
> Gil
>
> Why is
creating a new SOAP header a problem?
>
> Paul
>
>
Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> So you are saying
that the definition of qname of the header is the
> reference to the
extension? This means that, for every extension for
> which I want mU
semantics, I need to define a unique header? Why is
> this preferable
to defining a single new attribute?
>
> What if I extend something like
the SequenceAcknowledgement header?
> Suppose an RMD is returning a
message into which it inserts two
> separate SequenceAcknowledgement's,
one of which has a
> mustUnderstand extension and the other which does
not. It seems
> that, using your mechanism, an RMS that did not
understand the
> extension would not be able to process either of the
acknowledgments
> despite the fact that one of them is not extended in
any way. What
> if there were three SequenceAcknowledgement headers in
the same
> message; one that carries a mustUnderstand extension,
another that
> carries a mayIgnore extension, and a third that isn't
extended at all?
>
> - gp
>
>
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday,
April 24, 2006 6:07 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz
> Cc: wsrx
>
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 115: clarifying
question
>
> Gil,
>
> Actually, I had something more like this in mind:
>
>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <S:Envelope
xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
>
xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604"
>
xmlns:wsse="http://docs.oasis-open.org/wss/2004/01/oasis-200401-wss-
>
wssecurity-secext-1.0.xsd"
> xmlns:foo="http://example.org/foo"
>
xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
>
<S:Header>
> <foo:SecureRM
S:mustUnderstand="1"/>
> <wsa:MessageID>
>
http://Business456.com/guid/0baaf88d-483b-4ecf-a6d8-a7c2eb546817
>
</wsa:MessageID>
>
<wsa:To>http://example.com/serviceB/123</wsa:To>
>
<wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/CreateSequence
>
</wsa:Action>
> <wsa:ReplyTo>
>
<wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>
</wsa:ReplyTo>
> </S:Header>
>
<S:Body>
> <wsrm:CreateSequence>
>
<wsrm:AcksTo>
>
<wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>
</wsrm:AcksTo>
>
<wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>
...
> </wsse:SecurityTokenReference>
>
</wsrm:CreateSequence>
> </S:Body>
>
</S:Envelope>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher
Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email:
> blog:
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone:
+1 508 377 9295
>
> "Gilbert Pilz" <>
wrote on 04/24/2006 05:41:23 PM:
>
> > During the conference
call of 4/20/2006 Chris asserted that you can
> > use a SOAP header
with a mustUnderstand attribute to flag the fact
> > that some
element in either another header or in the message body is
> > an
extension that must be understood by the receiver. I'm not sure I
> >
understood exactly what Chris thought this should look like. For
> >
example, imagine the following CreateSequence message. The extension
>
> elements have been marked in bold. What is supposed to go in the
>
> <wsrm:Extension> header?
> >
> > <?xml
version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> > <S:Envelope
xmlns:S="http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope"
> >
xmlns:wsrm="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604"
> >
xmlns:wsa="http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing">
> >
<S:Header>
> > <wsrm:Extension
S:mustUnderstand="1">
> > ????
> >
</wsrm:Extension>
> > <wsa:MessageID>
> >
http://Business456.com/guid/0baaf88d-483b-4ecf-a6d8-a7c2eb546817
>
> </wsa:MessageID>
> >
<wsa:To>http://example.com/serviceB/123</wsa:To>
> >
<wsa:Action>http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200604/CreateSequence
>
> </wsa:Action>
> > <wsa:ReplyTo>
> >
<wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>
> </wsa:ReplyTo>
> > </S:Header>
>
> <S:Body>
> >
<wsrm:CreateSequence>
> >
<wsrm:AcksTo>
> >
<wsa:Address>http://Business456.com/serviceA/789</wsa:Address>
>
> </wsrm:AcksTo>
> >
<wsrm:SecurityComposition>
> >
<wsrm:Identifier>
> >
http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-
> >
rx/wsrmsp/200604/profile/http_auth/samenode
> >
</wsrm:Identifier>
> >
</wsrm:SecurityComposition>
> >
</wsrm:CreateSequence>
> > </S:Body>
> >
</S:Envelope>
> >
> > I'm sure that most of us could
all come up with a reasonable design
> > to do what you suggest, but
for the purposes of further discussion
> > I'd like to know what
design Chris had in mind?
> >
> > - gp
>
> --
>
> Paul
Fremantle
> VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
>
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform",
www.wso2.com
