[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Discussion of Conformance Points for WS-Reliability
Jacques Durand wrote: > Tom: > > Drawing the line between one conformance level and the next is always > tricky... > Maybe we need more "business" input for this. > > E.g.: one could argue that base level should include duplicate > elimination, > meaning if a Receiver has to support "exactly once" delivery, > it should not necessarily have to support ordering, as in your "Full" > option. > I used the simple criteria that if remebering any state is required it goes in full option. Duplicate elimination requires state in receiver, that is why I put it in full. I guess moving more into simple conformance is one way forwared, which might be better than having one more conformance classes. > Agree that we may need to split conformance requirements > along the Receiver / Sender line (i.e. a WS may be required to support > guaranteed > delivery as a Receiver, but not as a Sender.) > > But the RM capability on the sender side should also enter > in the definition of conformance profiles I think. > I am not sure what difference it would make for interop. The sender selects the options it wants when it populates the request parameters. If it does not support a feature, it will not ask for it in the request. > > Jacques > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 1:51 PM > To: wsrm > Subject: [wsrm] Discussion of Conformance Points for WS-Reliability > > > I propose just two levels of conformance for WS-Reliability message > receivers: > > Simple: The receiver can handle guaranteed delivery requests > Full: The receiver can handle any WS-Relibility request > > A receiving implementation may claim conformance as a Simple receiver, > or as a Full receiver. > > A sender would only have to implement the portions of the protocol that > they use, as indicated > by the QOS request parameters they select. Thus we do not need > conformance classes for senders. > > What do you think? > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster > of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php. > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]