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] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage


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.



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