Re: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Ashok,

What makes you think that the wsp:Optional='true'
on the RMAssertion
makes no sense?

<wsrm:RMAssertion wsp:Optional="true">...</wsrm:RMAssertion>

is the equivalent of 

<wsp:ExactlyOne>
  <wsp:All>
    <wsrm:RMAssertion>...</wsrm:RMAssertion>
  </wsp:All>
  <wsp:All/>
</wsp:ExactlyOne>

which translates to, the RMS may choose
to use RM or not at its discretion.

Why does that not make sense? The semantic
of the wsrm:RMAssertion is *not* purely informational.
Its presence means that the endpoint
either requires or supports (in the case of wsp:Optional=:true")
the use of the WS-RM protocol.

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 10/17/2005 05:30:03 PM:

> Please see attached document.
> 
> The wording is written as a delta to the WS-RX Policy document.
> The words highlighted in green are suggested additions and the
> paragraph highlighted in red is a suggested deletion.
> 
> There are additions and deletions to section 2.3 Assertion Attachment
> and a new section to be added between sections 2.4 and 2.4 entitled
> Assertion Semantics.  
> 
> I also suggest that the attribute
> /wsrmp:RMAssertion/@wsp:Optional="true" on line 158 of section
2.2 be
> removed as it makes no sense.
> 
> The semantics assume that the assertion is purely informational and
> does not appear as a header in neither the messages in the sequence
nor
> the signaling messages.
> 
> Some of the people in the WS-RX WG have expressed the opinion that
> that WS-RX policy information should be made available from the 
> signaling messages 
> (CreateSequence, CreateSequenceResponse, etc) so that the RMS can
> adjust its retransmission interval and perhaps its inactivity 
> timeout based on the acknowledgement interval of the RMD and the RMS
> can perform some optimization 
> based on the delivery assurances between the RMD and the AD.  This
is a
> reasonable position.  If the WG so decides, I can modify the
wording to
> reflect these semantics.
> 
> All the best, Ashok
> [attachment "Issue24.sxw" deleted by Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM]