RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove LastMessage

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

+1

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

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS wrote on 11/02/2005 02:56:09
PM:

> 
> The security aspect of it is probably misstated as a "security"
> thing.  If someone has someone else's sequence ID preventing
them 
> from using message numbers higher than X seems almost random and 
> silly.  We don't try to stop them from using any msg number less
> than X - and that would be just as bad. So, to think that 
> LastMessage adds any level of security is very misleading and my 
> assumption that it was because of some security thing was just a 
> guess.  Perhaps there's some other reason but I just couldn't
think 
> of one - and if that's the only reason, as I said, I think its silly.
> 
> As for "consistency" - that's a red herring.  Once
we change the 
> namespace we're incompatible - not to mention all of the other 
> political issues this part of the conversation may generate  :-)
> 
> thanks 
> -Doug 
> 
> 
> 

> 
> "Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> 
> 11/02/2005 02:41 PM 
> 
> To
> 
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS 
> 
> cc
> 
> "Jacques Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

> 
> 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.