Ah, section 3.9. Yes, that seems to cover it in as far as what
we can say in RM. I suggest we include a pointer to this text in our response.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2006 6:17 AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol
response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous
Does this text
in the spec cover it:
During creation
of a Sequence the RM Source MAY specify the WS-Addressing anonymous IRI as the
address of the
AcksTo EPR for that Sequence. When the RM Source specifies the WS-Addressing
anonymous IRI
as the address of the AcksTo EPR, the RM Destination MUST Transmit any
SequenceAcknowledgement
headers for the created Sequence in a SOAP envelope to be Transmitted
on the protocol
binding-specific channel. Such a channel is provided by the context of a
Received
message
containing a SOAP envelope that contains a Sequence header block and/or an
AckRequested
header block
for that same Sequence identifier.
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>
11/16/2006
05:35 AM
|
|
To
|
Marc
Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
|
|
cc
|
"ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
|
Subject
|
Re:
[ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response for AcksTo =
wsa:anonymous
|
|
I'm not suggesting we define HTTP binding
issues in our spec. I'm
pondering the following:
In the case where there is an anonymous AcksTo and an AckRequested, the
RMD SHOULD respond with the SequenceAck on the backchannel of the
request that carried the AckReq.
Paul
Marc Goodner wrote:
> Paul,
>
> We can't describe HTTP binding issues in our spec, underlying
transports are simply out of scope. I don't have any issue with recommending
they forward this issue to a group like WS-I's RSP WG where HTTP is in scope of
their work.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2006 12:08 AM
> To: Marc Goodner
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol
response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous
>
> Marc
>
> In the case of AckRequested over an anon HTTP connection, I believe
the
> RMD should respond directly. After all it doesn't know when the next
> HTTP connection will come in to respond on. So I think they have a
point
> and we should state this.
>
> Paul
>
> Marc Goodner wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> --
> 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