ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 15:07:56 -0400
I don't get it.
Why all the fuss over something that
is purely informational? Why all the bother over
the use of the term "observed"?
Why is it necessary to add something to the mark-up
at all? The definition of the parameter/assertion
is what the creators of that assertion/parameter
choose it to mean. If we choose it to
mean: this has no effect what-so-ever on the
manifestation on-the-wire, then it has
no effect on the manifestation on-the-wire.
Can we stop the obsessive nonsense and
move on to issues that are important?
As I have maintained all along, and
as I believe the TC members have come to consensus
agreement on, the DA is a contract between
the RMD and AD. Period. How it is implemented
is immaterial to the spec. We agreed
to define an INFORMATIONAL assertion/parameter
that can be used to inform the RMS (or
AS) as to what it can expect the RMD to do with the
messages it receives.
Whether or not, there is a specific
WS-Policy attribute that discriminates between
assertions that manifest themselves
on the wire or not is irrelevant IMO.
Frankly, I would like to move on from
this navel-gazing exercise. Do we REALLY think that
someone is going to be confused by this?
I mean, really?
IMO, whether we use "in effect"
or "observed" matters little in the end.
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
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
wrote on 10/20/2005 02:08:03 PM:
> Here is my reason for agreeing to the resolution at the F2F:
>
> There are two kinds of policies: policies that affect the messages
on
> the wire and policies that do not (or "observed"). "observed"
policies
> would be ones like privacy policy of a Web site or auditing. These
kind
> of policies are informational to the client of the service and the
> messages on the wire do not get affected by it. Non-observed policies
> are policies that affect the messages. For example, encryption etc.
>
> My sense of the F2F resolution was that the TC wanted to capture the
> fact that DAs, timeouts etc were "observed" and an AI was
generated to
> capture this (the wsp:Observed in the old ws-policy doc does not define
> this well).
>
> From that perspective, "in effect" doesn't quite capture
our intention.
> "observed" is tainted because of historical baggage. How
about just
> stating that the RM assertion parameters do not affect the messages
on
> the wire?
>
> Comments?
>
> -Anish
> --
>
>
> Marc Goodner wrote:
> > I realize that, the resolution to i024 was to close the issue
and
> > clarify the meaning of the term “observed”. The word “observed”
was not
> > added to the spec by i024, it was already there. My proposal
drops the
> > ambiguous term and adds text that does not need any clarification.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:50 PM
> > *To:* Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> >
> >
> >
> > The word 'observed' alone would not have satisfied the issue.
> >
> > That's why the WG wanted words to clarify the semantics.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:40 PM
> > *To:* ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> >
> > I don’t understand why defining the term “observed”
would have
> > satisfied this issue and the change below does
not. I see no
> > ambiguity in the words I have proposed.
> >
> >
> >
> > What is ambiguous about “in effect”? Is not the
intention of the
> > definition of the DA here to expose what DA is
in effect between the
> > RMD and AD where this would be used? I can see
some ambiguity about
> > “observed” in this context as it is a word that
can have
> > unintentional interpretations among WS-Policy experts.
Particularly
> > for those who have differing recollections of the
meaning of
> > wsp:Observed before it was removed from WS-Policy.
I don’t believe
> > the word “observed” was used here to cause such
interpretation and I
> > thought that was why clarification was needed.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would have expected the clarification of “observed”
to say
> > something about the DA being “in effect” between
the RM and app
> > layer. Removing the offending word seems a cleaner
approach than
> > attempting to define it.
> >
> >
> >
> > If the below change is acceptable to the TC I see
no reason to
> > reopen the issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005 12:15 PM
> > *To:* Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for AI 40 and i024
> >
> >
> >
> > So, the proposal is to change the undefined word
"observed" with
> > alternate undefined
> >
> > words "in effect". I'm sorry, but
I disagree.
> >
> >
> >
> > I would like to ask the chairs to reopen the discussion
to determine
> > what the WG really
> >
> > wants.
> >
> > All the best, Ashok
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 18, 2005
9:42 AM
> > *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* [ws-rx] Proposal for AI
40 and i024
> >
> > I propose the following to close
the open AI 40 for i024,
> > clarifying the meaning of observed.
> >
> >
> >
> > Change the word “observed” on lines
233 and 245 to “in effect”.
> >
> > Change the words “observed by”
on lines 233 and 245 to “in
> > effect at”.
> >
> >
> >
> > This would result in the following
text in the RM Policy doc.
> >
> >
> >
> > The Delivery Assurance indicates
a delivery assurance claim *in
> > effect* between an Application
> > Source and an RM Source or an Application
Destination and an RM
> > Destination.
> >
> > /wsrmp:DeliveryAssertion
> > An assertion that makes a claim as
to the delivery assurance
> > policy *in effect* *at* the
> > destination endpoint.
> >
> >
> >
> > I believe that this retains the intention
of the current text.
> >
> >
> >
> > 1 AI 40
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-
> rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1048
> >
> >
> > 2 i024
> > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-
> rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i024
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]