NEW issue: WS-BA: Protocols should be terminable

[Alastair Green <alastair.green@choreology.com>]

Issue name -- WS-BA: Protocols should be terminable

PLEASE DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL OR START A DISCUSSISON THREAD UNTIL 
THE ISSUE IS ASSIGNED A NUMBER.

The issues coordinators will notify the list when that has occurred.

Target document and draft:

Protocol:  BA

Artifact:  spec

Draft:

BA spec working draft uploaded 2005-12-02

Link to the document referenced:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15726/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20wstx-wsba-1.1-spec-wd-01.pdf

Section and PDF line number:

New section required.


Issue type:

Design


Related issues:

Issue [] WS-C/WS-AT: Is request-reply MEP useful?
Issue [] WS-C: Make Register/RegisterResponse retriable
Issue [] WS-AT: Completion protocol should be interminable


Issue Description:

Define BA coordination protocols as "terminable", specifying which 
messages are terminal notifications.


Issue Details:

This issue assumes that the issue "WS-C/WS-AT: Is request-reply MEP 
useful?" has been resolved in such a way
as to define a concept of "terminable exchanges". Like the 2PC protocols 
in WS-AT, the WS-BA protocols have
messages which are notifications, and messages which are terminal 
notifications. For consistency these should
be spelt out in a new section in the WS-BA spec. Section 9 of the WS-AT 
spec is a relevant reference.


Proposed Resolution:

Insert a new section mirroring the classification of WS-AT messages, 
such that the coordination protocol
messages Exited, Cancelled, Closed and Compensated are terminal 
notifications, and the other non-fault
messages are notifications.