OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024


Ashok,
 
I think the communication problem is orthogonal to your proposal for issue 024. This problem will arise regardless of whether we explicitly put a marker to say that a particular assertion is "observed". From the QName of the assertion, it is obvious to the parties who "understand" the assertion that communication needs to happen if that is what you are concerned about. 
 
In other words,  I separate the problem of "determining that communication needs to happen" from "how communication will happen". For the former, we do not need another marker. It seems to me that QName is sufficient.
 
I would rather tackle the latter issue separately.  Rather than requiring a special marker, we should further determine in detail "what needs to be communicated" and "under which circumstances".
 
The special marker does not help in this regard, IMO.
 
Cheers,
 
--umit
 


From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Oct 18, 2005 5:49 AM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

OK.  So, suppose the server says that RM is optional.  The client can choose
whether to have the messages sent to it via a reliable sequence or not.  But the
RM sequence requires some setting up and an agreement between the two
sides.  How does this communication happen? 

All the best, Ashok

 


From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:01 PM
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

The purpose that it serves is that a client/RMS do not have to engage WS-RM since it is optional functionality. From the perspective of the endpoint, there are two alternatives one involving RM the other not involving RM. If your endpoint was making the RM optional, a client can communicate with it without engaging it, choosing the latter policy alternative.
 
 
 
--umit
 


From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, Oct 17, 2005 3:44 PM
To: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

The presence of the RM assertion indicates that reliable messaging is being used
or MUST be used.  'Optional' means that it MAY be used.  In a particular service
either it is being used or it's not being used, what purpose does the MAY serve?
 

All the best, Ashok

 


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:28 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024


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]


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]