[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 2119 keywords ...
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? 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]