[BYTEIO-WG] ByteIO Interoperability Fiesta

Tue Jul 17 08:04:48 CDT 2007

Michel,

Definitely please do make the changes indicated.  I think all of the changes
you mentioned are fine though I do believe that part of the OGSA Base
Profile (and part of WS-I) indicates that SOAPAction cannot be used for
message routing.  However, I think the changes you suggest are in line with
that any ways (in so much as they still don't require services to use the
action).  Given the magnitude of some of these changes, we should probably
extend the drop-dead deadline for the services by a week.  Does anyone
disagree.  I'll give this 24 hours to percolate through everyone's mailboxes
and will send out an amended date tomorrow.

-Mark

--
Mark Morgan
Research Scientist
Department of Computer Science
University of Virginia
http://www.cs.virginia.edu
mmm2a at virginia.edu
(434) 982-2047 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: byteio-wg-bounces at ogf.org 
> [mailto:byteio-wg-bounces at ogf.org] On Behalf Of Michel Drescher
> Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 4:29 AM
> To: Karolina Sarnowska
> Cc: byteio-wg at ggf.org
> Subject: Re: [BYTEIO-WG] ByteIO Interoperability Fiesta
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I got some more stuff to discuss: WS-Addressing mandates the 
> use of the wsa:Action information element. WS-Addressing also 
> allows for explicit association or default association of a 
> wsa:Action value. The default association generates a 
> wsa:Action value derived automatically from the invoked 
> operation on the port type. However, the explicit association 
> is mandated to be specified in the portType rather in the binding.
> 
> As ByteIO uses WS-Addressing, I think we are facing the 
> following issues:
> - AFAIR RByteIO and SByteIO do not define explicit action values.
> - However, the non-normative SOAP Encoding examples indicate explicit
>   values as the values given do not match the construction pattern for
>   default association based wsa:Action values.
> - WSRF uses WS-Addressing, and explicitly defines wsa:Action values.
>   WSRF does not give the wsa:Action value in its portTypes as 
> it expects
>   the user to create the portType according to the specification
> - RByteIO and SByteIO port types do not specify the wsa:Addressing
>   wsa:Action attributes.
> 
> Currently I see these issues jeopardizing the interop fiesta 
> success, so I propose the following solution:
> - ByteIO defines explicit wsa:Action values or all its 
> operations on the
>   RByteIO and SByteIO operations.
> - Change the RByteIO and SByteIO portTypes to reflect those explicit
>   wsa:Action values
> - Change the RByteIO and SByteIO portTypes to reflect the explicit
>   wsa:Action values for the WSRF operations.
> - Change the interop binding WSDLs for SByteIO and RByteIO in 
> the interop
>   testing specification
> - Publish a new draft 12 of the interop testing specification 
> that reflets
>   all the proposed changes in this mail, plus the changes 
> proposed on the
>   Wiki (regarding WS-I violating namespace issues, and the missing
>   ResourceUnknownFault issue).
> 
> If you guys agree to that, I'll take the pen to make all the 
> necessary changes.
> 
> Any comments?
> 
> Cheers,
> Michel
> 
> Michel Drescher wrote:
> > Hi Karolina, all,
> > 
> > thanks for pointing these things out, good catch!
> > 
> > However, I think we are out of synch, mostly, I fear, it 
> being y fault.
> > 
> > I have been browsing though old notes of ByteIO WG sessions 
> and mailsw 
> > on the ML, and I discovered the following:
> > - We once decided to drop WSRF message exchanges except for 
> > GetResourceProperty, as we are testing ByteIO, not WSRF
> > - We decided to keep the WSRF GetResourceProperty test 
> cases (sections 
> > 4.1 and 5.1) to check for a generally proper setup on the 
> server side.
> > 
> > I actually have a draft 11 of the ByteIO Interop testing 
> document that 
> > reflects all this; it somehow totally slipped my mind that 
> I had to do 
> > some editorial stuff on the interop document. :(
> > 
> > Comments? Should I publish version 11, with or without the 
> currently 
> > discovered issues?
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Michel
> > 
> > 
> > Karolina Sadrnowska wrote:
> >> Hello All,
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> My name is Karolina Sarnowska.  I am a part of Andrew Grimshaw's 
> >> group at the University of Virginia.  I have been working 
> with Mark 
> >> Morgan on getting Genesis II ready for the 
> Interoperability Fiesta.  
> >> I wanted to email everyone what I just posted on the Wiki 
> regarding some issues with the documentation.
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >> -Karolina
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >>     /ByteIO Interoperability Testing Scenarios/ Document 
> Issues and 
> >> Corrections
> >>
> >> This section lists issues in the /ByteIO Interoperability Testing 
> >> Scenarios/ document and presents corrections. The issues 
> are listed 
> >> in the order that they appear in the document and 
> reference the specific section they refer to.
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Missing Tags in SOAP Body of Request Message
> >>
> >> /(4.2) wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO 
> client adds to 
> >> the SOAP body of the request message is missing the 
> >> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> tag. The SOAP body should 
> instead contain the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:Readable 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:Writeable 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> rbyteio:TransferMechanism 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Incorrect Resource Property Name and Possibly Incorrect Query
> >>
> >> /(4.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> An incorrect name for the Resource Property is used in the 
> >> non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO client 
> adds to the SOAP body of the request message.
> >> The Resource Property queried is called "ModificationTime" not 
> >> "ModificationDate". The SOAP body should instead contain 
> the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:QueryExpression 
> >> Dialect="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116">
> >>
> >>         /*/rbyteio:ModificationTime
> >>
> >>     </wsrf-rp:QueryExpression>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
> >>
> >> It is also unclear whether this example contains the 
> correct query. 
> >> If the query does not need to include the namespace, then 
> the query 
> >> could be instead "/*/ModificationTime".
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Missing Tag in SOAP Body of Response Message
> >>
> >> /(4.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO 
> client adds to 
> >> the SOAP body of the response message is missing the 
> >> <rbyteio:ModificationTime> tag. The SOAP body should 
> instead contain the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
> >>
> >>     <rbyteio:~ModificationTime>
> >>
> >>       2006-09-11T16:15:33+05:00
> >>
> >>     </rbyteio:ModificationTime>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Missing Tags in SOAP Body of Request Message
> >>
> >> /(5.2) wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO 
> client adds to 
> >> the SOAP body of the request message is missing the 
> >> <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> tag. The SOAP body should 
> instead contain the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:Seekable 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:TransferMechanism 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty> sbyteio:EndOfStream 
> >> </wsrf-rp:ResourceProperty>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:GetMultipleResourceProperties>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Possibly Incorrect Query
> >>
> >> /(5.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> This section incorrectly refers to a modification date query. It 
> >> should instead
> >> state: In this case, the client wishes to query the 
> resource's writeable property.
> >>
> >> Mainly, it is unclear whether the non-normative example of the 
> >> elements the ByteIO client adds to the SOAP body of the response 
> >> message contains the correct query. If the query should 
> include the 
> >> namespace, then it should be "/*/sbyteio:Writeable" and 
> the SOAP body should then contain the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
> >>
> >>     <wsrf-rp:QueryExpression 
> >> Dialect="http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-xpath-19991116">
> >>
> >>         /*/sbyteio:Writeable
> >>
> >>     </wsrf-rp:QueryExpression>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties>
> >>
> >> If the namespace is not required, then querying for 
> "/*/Writeable" if fine.
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Missing Tag in SOAP body of Response Message
> >>
> >> /(5.3) wsrf-rp:QueryResourceProperties operation/
> >>
> >> The non-normative example of the elements the ByteIO 
> client adds to 
> >> the SOAP body of the response message is missing the 
> >> <sbyteio:Writeable> tag. The SOAP body should instead 
> contain the following:
> >>
> >> <wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
> >>
> >>     <sbyteio:Writeable>
> >>
> >>       true
> >>
> >>     </sbyteio:Writeable>
> >>
> >> </wsrf-rp:QueryResourcePropertiesResponse>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>     Discussion
> >>
> >> This section lists questions that need to be answered to resolve 
> >> ambiguity in the Interoperability Fiesta documentation.
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----------
> >>
> >>
> >>       Queries and Namespaces
> >>
> >> If the client wishes to query a resources property, should 
> the query 
> >> contain the namespace? Which of the following queries are 
> valid? The 
> >> sections in parentheses refer to where the queries appear in the 
> >> "ByteIO 
> >> 
> <http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/createPage/projects.byteio-wg/
> >> wiki?pageName=ByteIO&referrerPageName=HomePage>
> >> Interoperability Testing Scenarios" document.
> >>
> >>     * "/*/sbyteio:Writeable" vs. "/*/Writeable" (Section 5.3)
> >>     * "/*/rbyteio:ModificationTime" vs. "/*/ModificationTime" 
> >> (Section 4.3)
> >>
> >>  
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> ---
> >>
> >> --
> >>   byteio-wg mailing list
> >>   byteio-wg at ogf.org
> >>   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > --
> > 
> > --
> >   byteio-wg mailing list
> >   byteio-wg at ogf.org
> >   http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/byteio-wg
> 
> 
> 