[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: TC May 24 con call minutes
May 24, 2004 OASIS Business Transaction TC * Details Thanks to Choreology for hosting this call. Dial in: +44 208 322 2500 Access code: 558076 * Agenda: - Minute taker - Call roll - Vote on previous minutes - General - Issues * Attendees Mark Little no Bill Pope present Sazi Temel no Tony Fletcher present Martin Chapman present Robert Haugen present Alastair Green present Peter Furniss present Alex Ceponkus leave-of-absence Doug Bunting present Meeting was quorate. * Vote on Previous Minutes Voted and accepted * General ** Next conference call Alex is not available at the usual date and time for this call or for the next two calls. It was discussed that Alex was an important part of resolving the last two issues. The chair will try to establish a date and time when Alex and a quorum of the TC can meet. * Issues ** Closed last meeting - Issue ex-7 and Issue: ex-3 - Issue maint-7 ** Closed this meeting - Issue maint-11: Allowing repeat cancel - Issue maint-12: Address priority attribute - Issue - ex-9: participant identification in context reply - Issue - ex-10: acknowledgements for Long Running Transactions ** Open issues - Issue - maint-13: CONFIRM_ONE_PHASE report-hazard default - Issue - ex-8: BTP-aware web-services need to declare their BTP-awareness * Actions 1. Peter: issue ex-8. Investigate possibilities for policy expression. See extra issue 8 discussion below. 2. Bill: next meeting. Establish date/time when Alec and a quorum of the TC can get together to address final two issues. ** Issues Votes and Discussion *** Issue maint-11: Allowing repeat cancel Proposed: Peter; Seconded: Tony; PROPOSAL PASSED UNOPPOSED. Under discussion at close of last meeting. **** Submitter: Alex Ceponkus **** Description: The existing state tables insist that an Inferior that has cancelled must immediately go to a state where there is no knowledge of the transaction (z) and respond to a repeated CANCEL with an INFERIOR_STATE/unknown message. In reality, an iimplementation is likely to still hold state which would allow it to reply CANCELLED again, for some time - eventually it will probably forget the cancelled transaction completely. Forcing immediate ignorance is unnecessary - implementations should be allowed, but not required to send a repeat CANCELLED if a repeat CANCEL is received. **** Proposal - Peter Furniss Add additional state z2, entered on sending CANCELLED where this currently transits to z. If an imbound message is received, transit to a new query state (y3), which is exitted by resending CANCELLED, reverting to z2. Disruption (loss of volatile information) should cause a transition to existing z. (Thus the current behaviour can be treated as a disruption I.) *** Issue maint-12: Address priority attribute Proposed: Tony, Seconded: Alastair PASSED UNOPPOSED **** Submitter: Alex Ceponkus **** Description: Main body of spec mentions an address priority attribute, but this attribute is not found in the XML. **** Proposal: Alex Ceponkus - Add: priority="...value..."? attribute to btp:some-address element on line 3452 (of BTP 1.0 PDF.) - Add: "The lower the value, the higher the priority." to address description on line 3466 (of BTP 1.0 PDF.) - Add: priority? attribute to superior-address elemment in CONTEXT abstract xml. line 3496 - Add: priority? attribute to inferior-address elemment in ENROL abstract xml. line 3600 - Add: priority? attribute to new-address element in REDIRECT abstract xml. line 3819 - Add: priority? attribute to decider-address element in BEGUN abstract xml. line 3844 - Add: priority? attribute to inferior-address element in BEGUN abstract xml. line 3847 - Add: <attribute name="priority" type="positiveInteger" use="optional" default="1"/> to address type in schema (line 57?) *** Issue - maint-13: CONFIRM_ONE_PHASE report-hazard default DEFERRED **** Submitter: Alex Ceponkus **** Description: CONFIRM_ONE_PHASE report-hazard has a default, and is not consistent with report-hazard found on CONFIRM_TRANSACTION and CANCEL_TRANSACTION. **** Proposal: Alex Ceponkus - Remove "Default is false." from report-hazard element description found in section 7.7.11 CONFIRM_ONE_PHASE. - Remove bold style from "false" in confirm-one-phase abstract xml. line 3741 - Remove: minOccurs="0" default="false" from report-hazard element in confirm-one-phase (line 346 of schema.) **** Discussion Peter: This is wrong. CONFIRM_ONE_PHASE should not have a report-hazard parameter. *** Issue - ex-9: participant identification in context reply Proposed: Peter; Seconded: Tony PASSED UNOPPOSED **** Submitter: Peter Furniss **** Description: CONTEXT is commonly sent in association with an application message, propagating the business transaction and telling the receiving application that work performed as a result of the application message should be part of the business transaction. However, with cohesionss, there is a need in some applications to identify a particular inferior (participant) as being responsible for some piece of application work. For example, an invitation (say request for quote) may be 'broadcast' (in some way) with an associated context for a cohesion. Responding applications can submit as many quotes as they wish, each corresponding to a separately enrolled inferior. The initiating application then chooses the successful quote(s) and confirms only those. To do this, the initiating application of course needs to know which inferior (as visible to it, via the coordinator) corresponds to which quote. There are already several ways that this can be done with BTP, but they are all rather application-specific. At present, one could: a) set the inferior name qualifier on the enrol to a field that is present in the application response (such as the quote number) b) put the inferior identifier as a field of the application message c) send the ENROL message in the header of the application message (using the one-shotting optimisation - if the carrier supports it, and it is appropriate for the configuration). None of these could readily be supported by generic software in the way a propagated context could be in the opposite direction. There should be some general way. **** Possible resolutions: Peter Furniss A possibility would be to allow an inferior identifier to be placed in the CONTEXT-REPLY, which would have similar semantics to having an CONTEXT-REPLY&ENROL&application message related group as far as association was concerned. Alternatively, the presence of an inferior name qualifier on a CONTEXT-REPLY could be defined as having the similar meaning. Note that both of these are essentially using CONTEXT-REPLY as just the standardised carrier of this information, rather than invent another message (REVERSE-CONTEXT ?) just for this purpose. **** Proposal: Peter Furniss Allow a CONTEXT-REPLY to contain an inferior identifier and define an additional related group CONTEXT_REPLY & Application Message, whose meaning is defined as (this is modified from the CONTEXT_REPLY & ENROL & Application Message text at 7.9.4): This related group applies only if the CONTEXT_REPLY message contains an inferior identifier value. In this case the transmission of the Application Message (and application effects implied by its transmission) has been associated with the Inferior whose identifier is in the CONTEXT_REPLY and the effects will be subject to the outcome delivered to that Inferior. (The rest of the text for the related group is left to the editing process). *** Issue - ex-10: acknowledgements for Long Running Transactions Proposed: Peter; Seconded: Tony; PASSED UNOPPOSED **** Submitter: Alastair Green **** Description: Ability to support long-running transactions is a design goal of BTP. In practice BTP does not support a useful feature that prevents idle network chatter during long (and expected) pauses in a conversation. This arises from product implementation experience. Any protocol message that will (in theory, subject to implementation level administrative or deployment overrides) be resent indefinitely until a state-moving message is received "in reply", should be capable of receiving a receipt-acknowledgement, whose reception can be interpreted to mean: I would prefer you not to resend the message I have just received. I will reply in my own good time, and I estimate that this time will be no less than X seconds away. Absent such acks, it is very difficult to obtain the appropriate balance between fault-tolerance and good network citizenship. Customers don’t like excess network traffic. The recoverable nature of all retriable conversations ensures that the use of a receipt-ack will not terminate the conversation prematurely or wrong-headedly. The SUPERIOR_STATUS/prepared-received message might be used as a model or basis for the syntax of such a message. **** Proposal: Peter Furniss I think the additional messages would be: INFERIOR_STATUS/prepare-received INFERIOR_STATUS/confirm-received INFEIROR_STATUS/cancel-received and SUPERIOR_STATUS/confirmed-received SUPERIOR_STATUS/cancelled-received the superior_status messages would only be used when the inferior had made an autonomous decision, and the superior didn't know the proper decision yet. None of these would cause a state change. There is no need for a "response-requested" version of these - normally the receiver will be in the state corresponding to having just sent the message. In the few cases where it is possible for the receiver to have moved on, the receiver could resend the new message (e.g. after sending CANCEL, receive INFERIOR_STATUS/prepare-received : could resent CANCEL). Sending the expected time (X) till decision is made would seem to be an item for a qualifier. Add the new parameter values to *_STATUS proposed above. Add a new standard qualifier "expected time till state change" that can be sent on any message to give an indication of how long the sender thinks it might be before it does something interesting. The message and the qualifier are informational - they do not cause state change, they do not forbid the sender from changing state much earlier, they do not commit the sender to changing state at the time stated, they do not change the persistence/recovery requirements implied by BTP. *** Issue - ex-8: BTP-aware web-services need to declare their BTP-awareness **** Submitter: Peter Furniss **** Description: There is currently no specified or recommended way for an application that supports BTP, e.g. a web-service that requires a BTP context to be present in the SOAP headers of an invocation, to state that it has this requirement. There should be a means at least for application interfaces defined using WSDL to state that they require a BTP context and will return a BTP context-reply. **** Discussion ***** Peter's original email: I believe there at least three ways of doing this, though I'm not sure of the details offhand: a) define an alternative wsdl binding, based on normal soap/http (say) with the header requirement (stated as requiring btp:messages, or as btp:context, as desired) b) define the context (etc.) as a message part, and the (regular) binding states that that part goes in the header c) define assertions that can decorate the wsdl. ws-policy would seem to be a way of doing this. I would imagine it is possible to define an assertion (which is essentially just a uri:specification text linkage) that could be used in ws-policy *and* could be used in ws-wsdl-decoration. Choreology have done some work on a), defining such a binding (takes about a page and a half) but not put it out in public yet. a) and c) are both ways of passing flags to tools to tell them to include "interception" in the processing of the soap messages. ***** Doug: OASIS WSPL in XACML is a possible alternative to WS-Policy. ***** Martin WS-RM, WS-Reliability TC Features and properties from WSDL 2.0, added a compositor. ***** Peter Can we do this in a grammar independent way, just indicate what we want to say and leave it up to the various grammars to determine the syntax of saying it. Possibly done using a URI. Peter will take an action item to follow up on these various specifications and see how this might apply. William Z Pope office: +1 603 373 0598 zpope@pobox.com mobile: +1 603 502 4490
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]