OK, I can see that. I still think that maintaining
consistency with the contributed protocol should have some weight though. Have
we considered keeping things like this but marking them deprecated?
I still disagree with using security
composition as an argument so long as it is undefined.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
11:40 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Jacques Durand;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE:
Remove LastMessage
Marc,
I believe even w/o the Close operation a TerminateSequence can be sent at any
time so IMO LastMessage would still be unneeded. At any time the RMS can
send a TerminateSequence - which means normally it would wait until it got all
of the Acks its waiting for. This would still be true whether or not a
LastMessage marker was sent.
thanks
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
11/02/2005 02:33 PM
|
To
|
"Jacques Durand"
<JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage
|
|
I’m not so sure. I need to think about this
some more.
A couple of observations though. First removing this breaks
at least one point of consistency with the contributed spec. I suggest we think
carefully before doing that. Second I don’t see this as a “protocol
complexity” issue. While the Close operation could completely subsume the
LastMessage marker you can still use this marker today without using Close at
all. That seems valuable to retain as it provides a simpler protocol
interaction capability in normal circmstances.
I disagree that this should be removed because a security
mechanism can address part of the functionality. I might agree is the
composition with that security mechanism was actually defined. If that is part
of the rationale for this I suggest not doing this until we have that security
composition defined.
From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 10:47 AM
To: 'Doug Davis'; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage
+1
I thought about proposing this too. The new Close operation subsumes
almost completely the LastMessage marker - the
added value is not worth the added protocol complexity.
-Jacques
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 7:30 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage
Title:Remove LastMessage
Description:
The LastMessage element, as part of a Sequence header element, appears
superfluous. It seems to serve 2 purposes:
1 - force a SeqAck to be sent back from the RMD
2 - force the RMD to reject any messages with a higher message #
#1 can be done with an AckReq header. We should avoid having multiple
ways to do the same thing.
#2 is really only an issue if someone tries to hijack the sequence - and to
protect against that we should be using a real security mechanism like
WS-SC/Trust, not the LastMessage element.
When an RMS is done with a sequence it is free to simply Close or Terminate it
(whether or not it has all of the Acks it wants - but normally it will wait) -
having an additional message exchange to send a LastMessage is unnecessary.
Justification: See above.
Target: core
Proposal: Remove all references to LastMessage (and related Fault)
from the spec [1]. See attached diff/pdf file for the specific changes.
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15001/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
Note the protocol flow/example picture was updated too.