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: Gil's proposal for i021


 
Thanks to Gil for making a concrete proposal. Hopefully this leads to a discussion on the list.
 
I have changed the subject line to indicate the issue number. I think folks have better memory of issue numbers than AI numbers. 
 
Thanks,
Sanjay


From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Jan 31, 2006 23:01 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078

In light of the (pending) resolutions to i086 and i087 it seemed simpler to present my proposal in the form of complete drafts of the WS-RM Policy specification. Attached are two PDF documents. One is a clean version of what the WS-RM Policy spec would look like with my proposed changes. The other contains change bars between my proposal and the current editors draft of WS-RM Policy (cd-02 with Marc's clean ups applied).
 
You will note that my proposal includes the proposed resolutions to i086 and i087. There was no simple way to present my ideas without doing this.
 
You may also note that I have changed line 93 from:
 
"The RM policy assertion indicates that the RM Source and RM Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM] to ensure reliable delivery of messages."
 
to:
 
"In general a RM policy assertion indicates that the Application Source and Application Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM] to ensure reliable delivery of messages".
 
I did this because I think that policy assertions have nothing to do with sequences or the entities that maintain them (i.e. the RMS and RMD) except that they indicate that some, unspecified sequence may or must be used to ensure the delivery of inbound or outbound messages. I think this confusion over endpoints (and the policies attached to those endpoints) and sequences lay at the heart of our difficulties with the idea of multiple endpoints with different policies sharing the same sequence. This change may be considered by some to be the resolution to a separate issue. If anyone has any objections I'll back it out and go through the process of raising a separate issue and making a separate proposal to address it.
 
- gp


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