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

[Frank Siebenlist]

Andrew Grimshaw wrote:
> 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"?
>   

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 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