[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: i061 proposal / directions
Retitled to indicate topic better. The proposal is in the issue list already. Not sure if there has been any updates to this one or not, I don't recall any. http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i061 Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/ -----Original Message----- From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 PM To: Patil, Sanjay; Marc Goodner; Doug Davis Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the 1/19 conf-call > -----Original Message----- > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 4:58 PM > To: Marc Goodner; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > on the 1/19 conf-call > > > Hi Marc, > > I don't remember having seen a clear and specific proposal on > this issue > yet. If I may have missed it, could you please point me to the same. > > The current proposal in the issue text is more of a discussion of the > matter and alludes to different alternatives. For example, > the proposal > as it stands suggests two ways of deciding when to use a > backchannel (in > the case where the AcksTo EPR has anon value) - a> EPR comparison, and > b> correlation with sequence identifier. > > The proposal also assumes a particular disposition of the WS-I BP > compliance issue about using a SOAP response on the backchannel for > one-way messages. I am not sure if the entire TC has agreed to this. +1. Based on my experience/discussions in WS-A, it is not clear to me whether there is yet a universal agreement to allowing anonymous Acks on the backchannel since it will require a SOAP envelope on the HTTP response just to be able to include protocol headers. If the idea is to agree on this behaviour in this tc and push the requirement elsewhere, that is an approach. Whatever we do, however, we need to make sure that the protocol requirements are "allowed" to be expressed since the stack /the specs need to compose together. Even if we may decide to break/extend the rules here, if it is prevented by the baseline specs it will not be desirable. Hence, we can not avoid taking WS-A/XMLP into account eventually. > > I feel that the group needs to further discuss this issue on > the mailing > list first. >I am quite willing to approach the WS-A WG chair with a > formal requirement coming from the WS-RX TC once we discuss and > formulate succinctly our needs. > > Thanks, > Sanjay --umit > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 16:18 PM > > To: Patil, Sanjay; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > > on the 1/19 conf-call > > > > When are we going to take on i061? Doug had a specific > > proposal for that > > one some time ago that did not depend on waiting on another > > TC or WG. My > > understanding is that Addressing was waiting on XP. That > > seems indirect > > enough that we shouldn't hold our breath, should we move on? > > > > Marc Goodner > > Technical Diplomat > > Microsoft Corporation > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/ > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:19 PM > > To: Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > > on the 1/19 > > conf-call > > > > > > You are right. i085 (proposed-01 on 1/12 conf-call) was > > resolved on the > > last call itself. > > > > Here is the updated proposed list of issues (i085 replaced by i082): > > > > a> i082 Level of "response message" unclear, for SequenceResponse > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i082 > > > > b> i086 Alternative approach for MaxMessage > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i086 > > > > c> i087 Acknowledgement Interval in CreateSequenceResponse > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i087 > > > > d> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scope > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i075 > > > > e> i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i083 > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 12:39 PM > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on > > the 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > > > I might be remembering incorrectly but I thought we adopted the > > proposal for i085 already (and I think the notes refelect > > that as well). > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > > > "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> > > > > 01/16/2006 03:32 PM > > > > > > To > > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > cc > > > > Subject > > [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first three issues below are essentially the ones that we > > accepted on the last call (1/12). The issues list is currently being > > updated and therefore the URLs for these three issues may > > become active > > some time later today! > > > > Thanks, > > Sanjay > > > > A> i085 CloseSequence element is inconsistent > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i085 > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > es.xml#i08 > > 5> > > > > B> i086 Alternative approach for MaxMessage > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i086 > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > es.xml#i08 > > 6> > > > > C> i087 Acknowledgement Interval in CreateSequenceResponse > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i087 > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > es.xml#i08 > > 7> > > > > D> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scope > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i075 > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > es.xml#i07 > > 5> > > > > E> i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i083 > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > es.xml#i08 > > 3> > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]