New Issue: Whose Inactivity Timeout is it anyway?

["Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com>]

Title: New Issue: Whose Inactivity Timeout is it anyway?

Title: Whose Inactivity Timeout is it anyway?

Description:

Currently the WS-RM Policy Assertion describes four distinctive parameters in Section 2.1 [1]: Base Retransmission Interval, Exponential Backoff, Inactivity Timeout and Acknowledgement Interval. Further, these parameters are scoped with respect to two distinct roles as summarized below:

RMS:
-- Base Retransmission Interval (BRI)
-- Exponential Backoff (EB)
-- Inactivity Timeout (IT)

RMD:
-- Inactivity Timeout (IT)
-- Acknowledgement Interval (AI)

The current WS-RM Policy Specification allows the specification of the Inactivity Timeout, however it is not clear who actually "owns" this value. Is it the RMS or the RMD that specifies the value of the Inactivity Timeout?

Currently the specification indicates the following in Lines 108-111:

{The assertion defines an inactivity timeout parameter that either the RM Source or RM Destination MAY include. If during this duration, an endpoint has received no application or control messages, the endpoint MAY consider the RM Sequence to have been terminated due to inactivity.  }

If either of the parties can include this value, which party does the WS-RM Policy Attachment refer to? If it applies to, say RMD, shouldn't the RMS be able to specify this in some fashion?

Justification: Simply, it is not clear from the specification which party it applies to. This must be clarified. Further, if either of the parties can include this value, it should be stated when RMS or RMD may specify this value.

Target: policy

Type: design

Proposal: TBD

RelatedTo: Previous New Issue Posted, "Target of RM Assertion parameters are confusing with respect to how they are specified and attached" ("soon" ;-) to appear at the tc website near you if you are patient! ).

References:

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14793/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-01.pdf