Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Doug

I don't understand your point, but I'm glad you found something amusing.

If the element wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Endpoint is a WSA 
Anonymous Endpoint then I believe that MC must be used, if only to 
receive Close/Terminate messages.
However, the spec is obviously lacking clarity because MC could be used 
for situations where it doesn't have to be.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> LOL thanks for the levity on an otherwise boring Tuesday.
>
> Any use of WSA's anonymous in an EPR can't possibly be used in this 
> way. First, show me where in any spec it says this. Second, its not 
> very hard to imagine cases where the RMS (client) wants its Acks to be 
> sent back synchronously even if its responses are sent asynchronously 
> to some other endpoint. The RMS can easily get its acks even w/o MC by 
> sending an AckRequested. Overloading the meaning of the WSA anonymous 
> URI in this way is asking for interop issues and would limit the set 
> of scenarios RM could be used by adding an implication that some 
> EPR+wsa:Anon == must use MC - especially when some people in this TC 
> have made it clear they may not support MC at all (in any form).
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> __________________________________________________
> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>*
>
> 11/14/2006 12:26 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
> cc
> 	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, 
> Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" 
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Subject
> 	Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> Actually I think in addition the CS/Offer/Endpoint should be anonymous
> for the precondition.
>
> Paul
>
> Paul Fremantle wrote:
> > I believe that with MC(SequenceID) I think there is a clear
> > preconditiion, which is CS+Offer+Anonymous-Acks-To.
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > Doug Davis wrote:
> >>
> >> Sorry, not true. MSFT's proposal does not address any preconditions
> >> since the ability to support MC should be known before the CS is
> >> sent, not after. Sending a MCRefued in response to a MC is too late
> >> in the game. No matter which version of MC lives on I think some
> >> policy assertion will be needed so the server-side can advertise that
> >> it will support MC, or not. I was assuming we could use this issue to
> >> add that.
> >>
> >> As for Jonathan's text about either side needing to be in possession
> >> of the RManonURI - short answer is 'no' - only the minter (client)
> >> needs to know what the value is.
> >>
> >> thanks
> >> -Doug
> >> __________________________________________________
> >> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
> >> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> *Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>*
> >>
> >> 11/14/2006 11:34 AM
> >>
> >>
> >> To
> >> Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Marsh
> >> <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
> >> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >> cc
> >>
> >> Subject
> >> RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> In the proposal we made for PR001 I don’t believe the below is an
> >> issue. The expected setup for MakeConection is defined.
> >>
> >> I agree that if we close PR001 with no action that the current spec
> >> will need to be changed to address this problem.
> >>
> >>
> >> *From:* Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com] *
> >> Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 9:46 AM*
> >> To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org*
> >> Subject:* [ws-rx] New issue: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
> >>
> >> MakeConnection as defined today relies on the RM Anonymous URI
> >> template. The spec does not adequately specify the preconditions
> >> necessary for the exchange to be successful.
> >>
> >> Prior to a MakeConnection message, do both the client and the server
> >> have to be in possession of a correctly constructed instance of the
> >> RM anon URI template? Of an EPR using this template? The example
> >> messages invent a subscription operation in step 1, which indicates
> >> that the precise URI and the intent to enable MakeConnection must be
> >> negotiated between the RMD and RMS out of band, yet nowhere are these
> >> preconditions enumerated. The RM protocol preconditions only list an
> >> EPR as a precondition, not the precise form of that EPR, and any
> >> intention that buffering of messages should be engaged. What happens
> >> if a client does a MakeConnection without all preconditions being
> >> satisfied also appears to be underspecified.
> >>
> >> *Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
> >> _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
> >> <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
> >>
> >
>
> -- 
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
>
>

-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com