Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?

["Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>]

Doug, in fact I think that's where the idea of the context mustUnderstand
originally came from. So let's see if I can summarise this as an issue (and
feel free to correct/augment):

should the extensibility element have mustUnderstand associated with it?

Or are you mustUnderstand for more elements in the context structure?

Mark.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Bunting" <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>
To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
Cc: "Mark Little" <mark.little@arjuna.com>; "ws-caf"
<ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2004 4:24 PM
Subject: Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?


> Peter and Mark,
>
> Issue 129 did not "remove mustUnderstand entirely" but instead dropped a
> WS-Context specific description of this SOAP attribute.  We deferred any
> specific semantics or requirements for this attribute to the referencing
> specification, if that proves necessary.
>
> For issue 134, I believe we still need a ctx:mustUnderstand attribute
> because soap:mustUnderstand does not address understanding of information
> extending the base WS-Context structure.  We have an extensibility point
> that may contain information that both sides must understand but may also
> contain information of interest primarily to one side only.  While I can
> imagine that many referencing specifications would clarify where
> information might be added that is of interest only to one side (say,
> internal references you need when processing the set of related messages
> defined for a context type), I do not think it appropriate to require full
> a priori knowledge of this important facet.  As a general practise,
> extensibility points should support in-band identification of the content
> that must be understood.
>
> thanx,
> doug
>
> On 06-Jul-04 05:59, Furniss, Peter wrote:
> > Mark,
> >
> > Just to be clear, there are (or were) two mustUnderstand attributes
> > referred to in 0.3-and-earlier  - one defined in SOAP, which the WS-CTX
> > spec said had to be ="true", and one defined in ws-context schema as an
> > attribute of participating-services-list, alongside the mustPropagate
> > attribute.
> >
> > 129 concerned only the SOAP one.
> > 134 concerned mostly the ws-context:mustUnderstand, and a passing
> > mention of mustPropagate. The latter was removed by 131.
> >
> > I am pleased at this resolution.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >     *Sent:* 06 July 2004 13:45
> >     *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
> >     *Subject:* Re: [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> >
> >     Yes, 129 removes mustUnderstand entirely and 134 does likewise with
> >     mustPropagate.
> >
> >     I'll mark the issue as closed and refer to those other issues.
> >
> >     Thanks,
> >
> >     Mark.
> >
> >         ----- Original Message -----
> >         *From:* Furniss, Peter <mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>
> >         *To:* Mark Little <mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com> ; ws-caf
> >         <mailto:ws-caf@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >         *Sent:* Tuesday, July 06, 2004 1:40 PM
> >         *Subject:* [ws-caf] RE: close issue 134?
> >
> >         Yes, if I understand the intent correctly
> >
> >         129 concerned the SOAP:mustUnderstand attribute in
> >         ws-context:context elements in SOAP Headers. The resolution of
> >         129, as I understand it, will be to remove any specific
> >         statement about the SOAP:mustUnderstand (it may note that the
> >         attribute is available and can have either value, as is normally
> >         the case for SOAP Header elements.
> >
> >         134 concerned the wsctx:mustUnderstand attribute which was
> >         (incorrectly) defined as an attribute of
> >         participating-services-list. I assume the intent is to remove it
> >         completely. If that is the intent, I concur.
> >
> >         Peter
> >
> >             -----Original Message-----
> >             *From:* Mark Little [mailto:mark.little@arjuna.com]
> >             *Sent:* 06 July 2004 12:24
> >             *To:* Furniss, Peter; ws-caf
> >             *Subject:* close issue 134?
> >
> >             Peter, I believe that this issue
> >
(http://services.arjuna.com/wscaf-issues/show_bug.cgi?id=134)
> >             is no longer required because of the resolution to issues
> >             129 and 131. Since you raised it I wanted to check before
> >             doing anything (or proposing to do anything).
> >
> >             Mark.
> >
>