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

[Joseph Fialli <Joseph.Fialli@Sun.COM>]

Andrew Wilkinson3 wrote:
> Hi Monica,
>
> In my opinion both specs are right in what they state. WS-C is rightly 
> being as non-prescriptive as possible as to the location of a 
> CoordinationContext in a SOAP message thereby allowing extending specs 
> freedom to place the CoordinationContext where they choose. Both AT and BA 
> have then chosen to constrain this to the SOAP header making it easier to 
> produce an interoperable implementation as we only need to look in one 
> place for the CoordinationContext, i.e. the SOAP header.
>
> I agree that there should be consistency between the AT and BA specs in 
> this regard (which we currently have) and if this restriction is indeed 
> the intention of the two specs then it would probably be appropriate to 
> highlight the point more prominently, e.g. section 2, rather than it only 
> being mentioned as part of the discussion of policy assertions.
>
> Thanks,
> Andy
>
>
>   
Andy,

I just wanted to be completely explicit with our concern.

   * WS-AT and WS-BA Section 4.2:

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


There are two constraints is the above statement.  The above wording is 
ambiguous
on what is defined in WS-Coordination.

Unambiguous breakdown of constraints:
1. The transaction MUST be represented as a CoordinationContext format, 
as defined in [WSCOOR]
2. The CoordinationContext format MUST be propagated as a SOAP header. 
(New constraint imposed by AT and BA, not defined in [WSCOOR]
   
-Joe


>
> "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> 
> Sent by: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM
> 26/10/2006 17:45
>
> To
> Andrew Wilkinson3/UK/IBM@IBMGB, "ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org" 
> <ws-tx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> Thomas Freund <tjfreund@us.ibm.com>, Ram Jeyaraman 
> <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
> Subject
> Re: [ws-tx] Re: Groups - New Action Item #0057 Review use of RFC 2119 
> keywords ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>>     
>
>
>
>
>