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

Doug,

When I look at your sample message flow on page 3, if I remove RM from the equation what I see is a one way in message and a one way out message that need to be correlated (presumably with wsa:RelatesTo) to form a complete req-resp MEP.

The only conclusion I can draw from that is that you can’t get the response (the one way out) with an anonymous uri for the replyTo on the request (the one way in) whether or not RM is involved.

So why is this a problem for RM to solve?

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: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:49 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] i089 - a revisted proposal

Based on feedback we've received I've attached an updated proposal for i089. The basic idea is still the same but I think we've cleaned things up quite a bit and eliminated some of the confusion that some people thought the old proposal introduced. This one is pretty small and still addresses all of the use-cases we've heard about. The biggest change is that we've made it more clear that GetMessage is designed to simply (re-)establish a transport-specific back-channel, nothing more.
(sorry, no cute poem :-)
thanks,
-Doug

ws-rx message