Re: [ws-tx] Re: Groups - New Action Item #0057 Review use of RFC 2119keywords ...

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Andrew,
In reviewing the proposed changes [1], we noted an inconsistency between 
WS-C and WS-AT. Note, the same inconsistency exists between WS-C and 
WS-BA. To explain, the TC previously discussed the use of SOAP headers 
[2] with respect to CoordinationContext.  Reference text in the three 
specifications:

   * WS-C, Section 2:

       "CoordinationContext elements are propagated to parties which
       may need to register Participants for the activity, using
       application-defined mechanisms -- e.g. as a header element of a
       SOAP application message sent to such parties. (Conveying a
       context in an application message is commonly referred to as
       flowing the context.)...When an application propagates an
       activity using a coordination service, applications MUST include
       a Coordination context in the message. When a context is
       exchanged as a SOAP header, the mustUnderstand attribute MUST be
       present and its value MUST be true."

   * WS-AT, Section 4.2:

       "The transaction MUST be represented as a SOAP header in
       CoordinationContext format, as defined in WS-Coordination [WSCOOR]."

   * WS-BA, Section 4.2:

       "The transaction MUST be represented as a SOAP header in
       CoordinationContext format, as defined in WS-Coordination [WSCOOR]."

WS-C allows application-defined means such as a SOAP header to be used 
to exchange this context. There, use of a SOAP header is only one 
application specific means. In WS-C, the constraint is that if a context 
is exchanged by such means, it must be understood. As evidenced in the 
references above, the statements in WS-AT (and WS-BA) are inconsistent 
with this premise.

Summary: WS-AT and WS-BA are introducing an additional constraint that a 
SOAP Header MUST be used to propagate CoordinationContext format that 
does not exist in WS-C. Suggest these three references be discussed and 
corrected to ensure our intent is clear (and consistent). Thank you.

Joe Fialli
Monica J. Martin

[1] Note, this relates to Actions #56-58, and these links.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200610/msg00037.html
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-tx/200610/msg00052.html
Your response: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200610/msg00063.html 

[2] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-tx/issues/WSTransactionIssues.xml#i012

> Andrew Wilkinson3 wrote:  All,
> Please find attached the proposed RFC 2119 keyword updates for PR-01 
> of the AT spec. The changes incorporate those proposed by Ram[1] and 
> Ian[2] with the exception of line 242 where Ram had proposed MAY but I 
> believe MUST is more appropriate.
>
> Comments welcome.