RE: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009 and 1024

[Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>]

Chris and Umit:
We need to do some work to decide what policy information needs to be
communicated between the 4 actors in a Reliable Exchange.  (Some feel
that the existing RM assertion is in the nature of implementation parameters
and does not have to be communicated to anyone.)  

Once we decide what needs to be communicated, designing the headers and 
deciding which messages they apply to should be straightforward.  The scope
or the policies - message or endpoint should also fall out.

I'm willing to do some of this work but I need to partner with someone 
who understands the scenarios and the nuances better than I do.


All the best, Ashok
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 8:51 AM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009
> 
> Ashok,
> 
> That implies that we resolve the issue of the granularity of 
> policy assertions such that it has Message Policy Subject scope.
> 
> That said, I think that there will be some properties of the 
> assertion that could remain at Endpoint Policy Subject scope.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> However, Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> phone: +1 508 377 9295
> 
> Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 
> 09/15/2005 10:33:15
> AM:
> 
> > Right!  But we need to work out which policy assertions go 
> with which
> messages.
> > I'm not sure that the proposed assertion shd be a child 
> element of the 
> > existing RM assertion as I think they belong in different
> messages.
> > But this is work we need to do.
> > 
> > All the best, Ashok
> > 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:12 AM
> > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009
> > > 
> > > Ashok,
> > > 
> > > I haven't suggested an association with a message at all. My 
> > > proposal just augments the RMssertion with a child element:
> > > <wsrm:DeliveryAssurance/>. The current RM Policy Assertion spec 
> > > defines scope of the assertion to have Endpoint Policy Subject as 
> > > per WS-Policy Attachments.
> > > 
> > > Cheers,
> > > 
> > > Christopher Ferris
> > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> > > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> > > 
> > > Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on
> > > 09/15/2005 08:59:52
> > > AM:
> > > 
> > > > Chris:
> > > > As with issue i024, we need to determine the messages to which 
> > > > this new assertion applies.  It seems from your discussion that
> > > it applies
> > > > only to the CreateSequenceResponse.  Does this makes 
> sense or are 
> > > > there other usecases?
> > > > 
> > > > All the best, Ashok
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:40 AM
> > > > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > > > Subject: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009
> > > > > 
> > > > > All,
> > > > > 
> > > > > This email is intended to start a discussion on issue 
> i009 [1].
> > > > > 
> > > > > The issue has to do with providing the RMD with the 
> capacity to 
> > > > > advertise its DA QoS. It is somewhat related to issue
> > > i024, raised
> > > > > by Ashok. However, I don't believe that the resolutions
> > > need to be
> > > > > tied to one another.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Basically, there is currently no specified means of
> > > declaring the DA
> > > > > applied at a given RMD endpoint. It has been suggested
> > > that the RMS
> > > > > (or AS) might have a vested interest in knowing, a priori to 
> > > > > establishing a Sequence with an RMD what DA would be applied. 
> > > > > For instance, it may require that the messages be processed
> > > InOrder. If
> > > > > the RMD were not enforcing InOrder DA at the RMD, then the 
> > > > > source endpoint might choose not to engage with that endpoint.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I would propose that one way to resolve this would be to
> > > define RM
> > > > > policy assertions that specify the DA.
> > > > > e.g. a psuedo-schema for this would be as follows:
> > > > > 
> > > > > <wsrm:RMAssertion>
> > > > >   <wsrm:DeliveryAssertion
> > > mode="[AtLeastOnce|AtMostOnce|ExactlyOnce]"
> > > > > ordered="[xs:boolean]"? ... >
> > > > >     ...
> > > > >   </wsrm:DeliveryAssertion>?
> > > > >   ...
> > > > > </wsrm:RMAssertion>
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thus, an endpoint could declare its DA QoS in the policy
> > > statement
> > > > > associated with the endpoint.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > 
> > > > > [1]
> > > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph
> > > > > p/14329/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i009
> > > > > 
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Christopher Ferris
> > > > > STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> > > > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> > > > > blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
> > > > > phone: +1 508 377 9295
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> 
>