[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-tx] Re: Groups - New Action Item #0057 Review use of RFC 2119keywords ...
Mark Little wrote: > Joe, so some wording like: > > "The transaction MUST be represented as a CoordinationContext, as > defined in WS-Coordination [WSCOOR] and MUST be propagated in the SOAP > header". > > would seem to address your concerns? +1 -Joe > > Mark. > > > > On 26 Oct 2006, at 19:39, Joseph Fialli wrote: > >> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]