Frank, et al, Let me make sure I understand your question.
When you say "on the wire" do you mean "must be present in the soap
So my recollection of the conversation is that I pointed out that AbstractName as currently defined in WS-Naming will not flow on the wire. The discussion from that point forward was about whether or not the AbstractName needed to flow on the wire. There were those that argued that you could make the argument that it was not necessary on an invocation. I suspect that this perspective only considers certain interaction (equivalency for instance). If the AbstractName is used for Authorization policy then I would imagine that it must flow on the wire. There was a thread on this that dealt with a binding of an AbstractName to wsa:Address. Tom -----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Siebenlist Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 1:19 PM To: Andrew Grimshaw Cc: ogsa-wg@ggf.org; ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org Subject: Re: [ogsa-naming-wg] service/resource identifier on the wire? Andrew Grimshaw wrote: header"?
Yes.
If so, then the discussion was to change the document to state that the endpoint receiving the message MUST NOT assume that the header contains the abstract name. The "endpoint" in this case refers to an endpoint that is being "named". Thus, it cannot be used for dispatch.
I cannot recall who suggested this (it might have been Tom, I cannot recall though). The motivation was that because not all elements of the WS-Address are guaranteed to be included in the header by all tooling.
I'm not sure if I understand what the discussion was related to. It is clear that the current AbstractName element will not end-up in the soap-header. This was the reason for me to suggest the use of the Address as an alternative to the AbstractName and by using a profile to add the right uniqueness properties to the Address such that it can be used as an identifier. Are there issues with the tooling and the address value, and how it ens up in the soap header? And even more important: does the current ws-naming working group believes that having a service/resource identifier that is also present in the message is important enough to standardize its use? -Frank.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org] On Behalf Of Frank Siebenlist Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:49 PM To: ogsa-wg@ggf.org; ogsa-naming-wg@ggf.org Subject: [ogsa-naming-wg] service/resource identifier on the wire?
In the past I've advocated that we need an AbstractName equivalent as a service/resource identifier on the wire, i.e. present in the soap message.
During the last conference call it was mentioned that at the ws-naming F2F it was discussed that this was not needed. Could someone explain what the arguments were? What the discussion was about exactly?
(maybe the f2f-minutes would be nice too ... hint, hint ;-) )
Thanks, Frank.
-- Frank Siebenlist franks@mcs.anl.gov The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory