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] AS need for ordered delivery?


However, it may be critical for an application to use or not to use a specific endpoint that supports RM.
 
The beauty is always on the eyes of the beholder :-)
 
--umit
 
 
 


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Friday, Oct 28, 2005 10:55 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?


I would only point out that this position means that it is clearly not necessary to the
correct operation of the 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


"Yalcinalp, Umit" <umit.yalcinalp@sap.com> wrote on 10/28/2005 01:35:30 PM:

> Doug,

>  
> The whole point in having DAs represented is to be provide the
> capability to "view" the contract so that among a set of specific
> endpoints with different DA claims,  a client application can make a choice.

>  
> You made an excellent point. There is a very big distinction between
> what the contract is than requiring the RM protocol to define how to
> support the contract.

>  
> I am one of those people who is interested in addressing the former.
> This view should NOT be skewed/interpreted as being interested in
> changing the RM protocol or the definition of how to support this
> contract. We have hashed that the requirements on the RM protocol
> and its semantics and I do hope that there is general understanding
> that the tc is not going to address the latter.

>  
> Therefore, I find the ongoing discussion on removing DAs, etc not
> very useful. The TC has made a decision to include DA in the spec
> with the understanding that the goal is to specify the claim about
> DA, nothing more nothing less.

>  
> Lets work with that.
>  
> Thanks,
>  
> --umit
>  
>  
>  
>
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Thursday, Oct 27, 2005 7:36 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

>
> +1
>
> Short version: remove DAs entirely from the spec
>
> Longer version: I think Duane's comparison with TCP is a very good
> one.  It illustrates how the upper layer treats the transport as a
> block box and that works well.  IMO, the RM layer should be a black
> box as well (for this discussion anyway  :-).  If a layer above TCP
> messes up the order of the packets before it actually reaches the
> TCP code then they're hosed.  If the layer above the RMS (meaning
> the AS) messes up the order of the soap messages before it reaches
> the RMS then they're hosed.  For that reason, the
> interactions/contract between the AS and the RMS are out of scope of
> this spec.  Likewise, for the most part, I think the
> interactions/contract between the RMD and the AD are out of scope
> too - with one exception, I do agree that the AS/RMS may want to
> know what the contract is - if for nothing else to know whether or
> not it wants to use that endpoint.  However, knowing what the
> contract is very different than requiring the RM protocol to define
> how to support that contract.  
>
> That last sentence could lead one to believe that I might be ok with
> specifying the DA in Policy and adopting Anish's proposal for issue
> 6, which allows the RMS to specify the DA on the CreateSeq.  And to
> be honest I actually could go for that if I thought this entire DA
> discussion would end with that - but I doubt it would  :-)   I fear
> that any mention of DA in the spec would cause this discussion to
> continue to be rehashed over and over.  So, unless we can find the
> right text that would allow us to do what Anish is proposing w/o
> reopening this can of worms again my current leaning is to just
> remove it from the spec and let it be a problem for the Policy folks
> to work out.  After all, since it doesn't effect the protocol it
> just becomes a matter of advertising and negotiating the QoS levels
> of a service - which is a much bigger problem than our one little spec.
>
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
>
>

>
> "Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>

> 10/26/2005 07:53 PM
>
> To

>
> "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>

>
> cc

>
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

>
> Subject

>
> RE: [ws-rx] AS need for ordered delivery?

>
>
>
>
>  
> <SNIP/>
> <JD> I notice though that TCP is designed - or implemented at least
> - so that the upper layer does not have to worry about packet
> reordering or numbering: so in effect TCP stacks interpret InOrder
> the same way we do so far in WS-RM: it is a black-box. Don't you
> prefer that to letting the upper layer "figuring it out" with
> packets numbers on its hand...?
> <SNIP/>
> Yes – that is exactly what I am implying.  A RMD is a black box that
> will be able to completely recreate the original stream as it was
> intended to be received based on a solid base WS-RX protocol.  What
> it does from that point on is discreet.  I am not in favor of
> specifying anything about the AD or any other upper layer.
>  
> My gut instinct is that DA’s should be removed all together from this work.
>  
> D


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