This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 6425 - Eventing-Clarify How to Address Event Source
Summary: Eventing-Clarify How to Address Event Source
Status: CLOSED REMIND
Alias: None
Product: WS-Resource Access
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Eventing (show other bugs)
Version: FPWD
Hardware: SGI Windows 2000
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Li Li
QA Contact: notifications mailing list for WS Resource Access
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords: hasProposal
Depends on:
Blocks: 6430
  Show dependency tree / graph
 
Reported: 2009-01-14 17:45 UTC by Li Li
Modified: 2009-04-21 21:25 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:

Attachments

Description Li Li 2009-01-14 17:45:15 UTC 
Current WS-Eventing defines the concept of Event Source, but does not specify how to address it in the Subscribe message. The sample Subscribe messages suggest that WS-Addressing [destination] EPR is used to address the Event Source, but this mechanism is not mandated. It is also not clear how to address individual event sources, such as a port type or dynamic event sources, in the Subscribe request.

We propose to mandate using WS-Addressing [destination] EPR to address any event sources. For example, a port type event source is addressed in SOAP as:
<s12:Header>
	<wsa:To>http://www.example.org/oceanwatch/EventSource</wsa:To>
	<wsdl:portType wsa:IsReferenceParameter='true' name='eventPortType' />
</s12:Header>

A CSTA monitor is addressed as:
<s12:Header>
	<wsa:To>http://www.example.org/csta/CallControl</wsa:To>
	<csta:MonitorCrossRefID wsa:IsReferenceParameter='true'>
		12345
	</csta:MonitorCrossRefID>
</s12:Header>
Comment 1 Robert Freund 2009-01-15 22:19:25 UTC 
2009-01-15: action to Li assigned for a before/after text
Comment 4 Robert Freund 2009-03-10 18:33:30 UTC 
Resolved 2009-03-10 with "All messages defined by this specification are sent to a Web service that is addressable by an EPR [WS-Addressing 1.0 Core]" to be added at an appropriate place, this change to be extended to all of the specs.
Comment 5 Doug Davis 2009-03-12 01:26:08 UTC 
in specs
Comment 6 Robert Freund 2009-03-12 13:23:35 UTC 
on 2009-03-12
The editor asked if there was an inadvertent lack of normative language
It as suggested to change  
"are sent"
to
"MUST be sent"

members agreed