RE: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

I can’t support this. I think some of the scenarios we have been discussing around the use of Offer demonstrate that you can get a reliable response back when using an anon wsa:ReplyTo value. I think the proposal would be OK if the last sentence, beginning “Note” was struck.

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:31 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal

 

For issue 089, I'd like to offer this revised proposed text (same basic idea just different wording):

After line 441 of [1] add:

Messages sent using this protocol MUST NOT use a wsa:To value that would prohibit the RM Source from retransmitting unacknowledged messages. For example, using WS-Addressing's anonymous IRI, without any additional transmission mechanism, would restrict an RM Source's ability to re-establishing a new connection to the RM Destination when a re-transmission of a message is needed.  Note, that this implicitly impacts possibles values used in other places - for example, in wsa:ReplyTo when responses are expected to be transmitted reliably.

thanks,
-Doug

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16095/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-08.pdf