[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal
Jacques Durand wrote: > Anish: > > Do we really need to keep this "static advertising" within scope of this > specification? In that case, we should change the RM assertion (modulo the resolution of issues around AI and MaxMessageNumber) to: <wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... > <wsrmp:AcknowledgementInterval Milliseconds="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ? <wsrmp:MaxMessageNumber Number="xs:unsignedLong" ... /> ? </wsrmp:RMAssertion> Note that the "..." from the previous pseudo-schema is removed. I.e., no extensibility point. The RMAssertion would essentially say whether RM is required/supported (depending on the value of wsp:Optional). If we do that, the issue of RM policy/parameters conflicting across WSDL ports/endpoints does not arise. ... and if you want to use extensibility, just use the one in CSR message. -Anish -- > We know that some out of band communication is certainly expected for > publishing DAs, etc, which is now considered out of scope. We could > expect a client to learn about parameters the same way. > > Also the static advertising we are talking about here is about protocol > parameters that some implementations may want to change from one > sequence to the other, based on various factors (CPU load, > negotiation...) that may have little to do with the service definition. > It is unclear what semantics a presence in WSDL would have - mostly > advisory as you say. > > That is why I'd propose to discuss new issue "proposed-03" asap, before > i075. > > - Jacques > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:35 AM > To: Doug Davis > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal > > I mostly agree with the statement below. > > But I think there is an issue with the idea of attaching RM policy > parameters to WSDL endpoint given the resolution of issue i010 -- which > states that both RMS and RMDs can span multiple endpoints (EPRs) and/or > multiple WSDL endpoint/ports. > > The fundamental unit/scope in WSRM is the Sequence and RM policy > assertion parameters should be associated with the Sequence rather than > a WSDL port/endpoint (I know that there is a possibility that we may end > up with zero RM policy parameters in the WSRM policy doc, but given the > extensibility within the assertion, there may be parameters specified > that are not defined by the WSRM policy document). Which is why, I think > it makes sense to include such parameters in the CreateSeqenceResponse > rather than in the WSDL. But there is certainly a need to advertise the > policy assertion/parameter through WSDL so that it is statically (before > creating the Sequence) available. But I view such WSDL attachment (RM > policy parameters, not the assertion itself) as advisory rather than > definitive. I think anything present in the CreateSeqenceResponse is > definitive. I.e., parameters in the CSR trumps parameters in the WSDL. > > -Anish > -- > > Doug Davis wrote: > > > > I thought Umit had proposed this but I couldn't find the email, sorry if > > its a dup, but just to make sure there's a formal proposal out there, I > > believe all we need to do for issue 075 is to add this text: > > > > After line 485 in [1]: > > The RM Policy parameters in effect for each Sequence is governed by the > > endpoint > > that was used for the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message. > > > > [1] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15177/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf > > > > > > > -Doug >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]