[ogsa-wg] RE: [ogsa-naming-wg] service/resource identifier on the wire?

[Andrew Grimshaw]

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 header"?

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. 

If not, what do you mean by "on the wire"?

Andrew

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org [mailto:owner-ogsa-naming-wg at ggf.org] On
Behalf Of Frank Siebenlist
Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:49 PM
To: ogsa-wg at ggf.org; ogsa-naming-wg at 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 at mcs.anl.gov
The Globus Alliance - Argonne National Laboratory