[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i050 proposal
The list archive doesn't seem to have the content of this message. I'm resending to try and correct that. Regards, Marc g ________________________________________ From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 11:19 AM To: wsrx Subject: [ws-rx] i050 proposal All, After following the discussion around this issue and thinking carefully I do believe that attempting to expose the delivery assurances was a mistake and they should be removed from the spec. I am unconvinced by the use cases for the need of exposing these. None of them strike me as things that the core protocol needs in order to function properly or that would add value to users of the protocol be they developers, administrators or applications. However I am sympathetic to those that believe it is important to keep the descriptions of the guarantees in the core spec. Therefore I have prepared the following proposal to remove the delivery assurance from the RM Policy spec and the language around delivery assurances in the core spec. Essentially what the changes to the core spec do is remove references to "delivery assurance" changing them instead to talk about the "guarantee" in effect. A lot of the problem with the delivery assurances being viewed as a concrete thing that was missing from the specification comes from the line "This guarantee is specified as a delivery assurance", the key problem there being the word "specified". These were intended to be abstract definitions of the guarantees that could be provided by use of WS-RM and not something to be formally specified and advertised by an RMD or RMS. This interpretation is strongly backed by these lines from the contributed WS-RM specification that are still present in the CD: "Persistence considerations related to an endpoint's ability to satisfy the delivery assurances defined below are the responsibility of the implementation and do not affect the wire protocol. As such, they are out of scope of this specification." I believe that if the following proposal, were it to be accepted, would go a long way to getting us back to work on the core protocol. The amount of discussion around this topic and issues being raised, none of which impact the wire protocol, is evidence as to why this subject was left out of scope for the contributed specification. Regards, Marc g Proposal to close i050
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]