RE: [wsrm] REL-13 proposal

[<magdolna.gerendai@nokia.com>]

Hi Iwasa and all,

I think, we should separate two things:
1. what the Reliable Messaging requires
2. how the SOAP stack multiplexes the messages based on the entity identifiers of the endpoint applications (these are NOT WS-RM entities)

1. Again, the Reliable Messaging doesn't require these entity identifiers, as it works appropriately without them (From/To/Service elements) as well. 
We already decided to remove the MessageID from this header, though the unique message identifiation is needed for the reliability. Our resolution, to use the GroupID and the sequence number concatenated good enough, and keeps the reliable messaging identification in the realiability layer.

2. The multiplexing of the messages based on the carried entity identifiers generally a usable idea, and likely will be required in the Web Services, but doesn't belong to the Reliable Messaging functionalities as it could be used well without reliability. I understand, that you argue to keep them, because currently there is no any standardized way of doing. Based on this argument we also may introduce some more elements into the protocol saying, no standardized solution exists yet, but nice to have. The problem, what I see if we keep them, that this is a "temporary" solution in the meaning, that they don't belong to the reliability. 

Last, but not least, neither of the other reliability protocols define that kind of elements in frame of reliable messaging. The WS-ReliableMessaging protocol uses additionally the WS-Addressing protocol for this purpose, the WS-Acknowledgement protocol doesn't define any of this kind of informations and even for the callback addressing uses the WS-Callback protocol.

Comments ?

br,
Magdolna

-----Original Message-----
From: ext iwasa [mailto:kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com]
Sent: July 01,2003 6:51
To: Gerendai Magdolna (NMP/Budapest); marc.andrue.goodner@sap.com;
wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsrm] REL-13 proposal


Magdolna and all,

I think the issue is there is no standard specification for general header
at this point. Not only From and To, but also message identification
element might be defined in the general header specification
if there is such specification.

And I don't believe just removing From and To from the spec is a good
resolution, since there is no other way to identify the sender and
receiver with consistent way regardless of the underlying protocol.