I believe we did. J
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 5:23 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol
response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous
Sounds about
right. Didn't we go round several times to get the text right that
indicated the acks would flow on the http response flow (when acksTo == anon)
if the request had a Seq or AckReq header referencing the SeqID in question?
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
08:14 PM
|
To
|
"ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
[ws-rx]
PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response for AcksTo =
wsa:anonymous
|
|
PR Issue 13, http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i013 , asks if an ack
needs to be mapped to the original HTTP Response for the message. It also
suggests that maybe wsaAnonymous is not an allowed value for acksTo and if so
should be explicitly forbidden.
I do not
believe wsa:Anonymous should be barred from use in acksTo. I think the spec is
pretty clear that the only barred value is wsa:None.
I don’t think
we can address the mapping of an ack in this case to the HTTP layer as the
underlying binding is out of our scope. In this case I think the specification
already allows flexibility to send an ack on the HTTP response for the original
request, or on a subsequent request including using AckRequested.
If everyone
else agrees I suggest we provide that feedback and close this issue with no
action.