[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ebxml-msg] Groups - New Issue Discovered
It looks like I will be on a plane during
the Wednesday call heading to AZ from GA. I did want to discuss some of these issues
to reach a consensus if we can. Dale From: Jacques Durand
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] Sacha: Your points are taken. So far I believe your concerns below are
addressed by the current draft (?)- if yes let us move on to wrap-up CD2. We still have some review work to do on
the pending list of proposals to the issues - are we ready to discuss these
next meeting? I have appended these proposals at the end
of this email. Jacques From: Sacha Schlegel
[mailto:sschlegel@cyclonecommerce.com] Hi everyone ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Subsubsection 5.1.3
(ebXML SOAP Envelope Extension ) should be moved to 5.1.4, and a new
subsubsection 5.1.3 should be added having the title Example. STATUS: Agreed that a
complete example be provided in its own section. Some disagreement as to
placement of Example section. Some feel it should be first; others
would like the normative specification text first with example
following. EDIT: Just need detailed
proposal ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) In examples, the element
eb:Partref still contains the attributes: (and Partref to be renamed PartInfo
I believe) 5.a- eb:id : agreed to
remove (replaced by XML Id) 5.b- eb:idref. Use instead
"href" (a SOAP standard attribute). STATUS: agreed. EDIT: Just need detailed
proposal (see SOAP 1.2 appendix which uses it) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 7) remove sections related
to SOAP actors: In Part 1: - Remove sections 5.1.3.8 ,
5.1.3.9, 5.1.3.10 about SOAP actors & mustUnderstand, as the related topologies
that such actors support are relevant to Part
2. (see proposed changes for Section 3 below) In Part II: - introduce the additional
topologies that are handled. - address the routing issue
for MEPs in a more generic way, and add SOAP actors as needed. STATUS: agreed. Issue 8
takes care of scoping Part 1 to remove needs for handling intermediaries. EDIT: TO DO (Part 1) ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 8) Remodeling of Section 3: 8.a- Remove 3.4 and in
Section 1 Intro (1.2 "Scope") add: "Features defined in Part
1 only support the point-to-point MSH topology, where no MSH or SOAP
intermediary is assumed. Part 2 takes into account
topologies with intermediaries, hub or multi-hop, as well as topologies where the
ultimate MSH acts as a SOAP intermediary." 8.b- move section 3.3
"Message Service Processing Model" at the end of Section 2 (Messaging Model),
replace title as "Messaging Service Processing Model" or "MSH
Processing Model". 8.c- Replaces what is left
of Section 3 (3.1 + 3.2) with proposal posted. 8.d- Section 3 should then
be renamed "Processing Modes" STATUS: Proposal has already
been discussed and reviewed, no overall objection. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 9) @soapresp attribute: STATUS: Agreed to remove.
(references to it still in from 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.3) EDIT: TO DO ------------------------------------------------------------------ 10) Security: - too many examples that may
not add value, redundant with WSS examples? - Ric notes that the
security examples are incorrect, where the references are supposed to be to the
SOAP Body, but instead contain a cid:xxx. STATUS: Agreed in general.
Needs detailed proposal. EDIT: -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11) reliability of
"Internal" Service/Action (such as msg:service/Ping): Last bullet item in 8.2.2: Relax the requirement: "... For example, in
the case of At-Least-Once delivery, the MSH must ensure that if a message
that has been submitted (Submit) fails before RM-Submit is invoked, then the user layer
(Producer) gets a notification of failure (Notify invocation), as would be the case if the message
processing failed just after RM-Submit was invoked. Similarly, if a message fails to be delivered on
receiver side (Deliver) even after RM-Deliver has been successfully invoked, then a notification
to the Consumer must occur on the receiver side (Notify)." as: "...For example, in the
case of At-Least-Once delivery, the MSH must ensure that if a message
that has been submitted (Submit) fails before RM-Submit is invoked, then a delivery failure
Error is generated, as would be the case if the message
processing failed just after RM-Submit was invoked. Similarly, if a message fails to be delivered on
receiver side (Deliver) even after RM-Deliver has been successfully invoked, then a delivery
failure Error must be generated. The reporting of these
errors obeys the P-Mode.errorHandling." At the end of 8.2.2
(Reliability section) add: "Messages that have
eb:CollaborationInfo/eb:Service set to
"urn:oasis:names:tc:ebxml-msg:service" are not intended to be
delivered (Deliver) to an MSH Consumer, although they may be submitted by an MSH Producer. They are
intended for internal MSH consumption. They may also be subject to
reliability contracts. In this case, the at-least-once contract is fulfilled with a successful
RM-delivery. In case of at-least-once delivery, a failure do deliver must cause
the generation of a delivery
failure Error. If this message was submitted or initiated by an
MSH Producer (Submit) instead of the MSH itself (e.g. a the Producer), the Producer
may be notified (Notify) of the failure depending on
the reporting mode, as for regular user messages." Also, in 8.1, L2822,
replace "may be subject" with "is subject". STATUS: Correction by
author. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. -----------------------------
Error section: --------------------- 12) - Add 1 error EBMS:0010
"ProcessingModeMismatch", severity: failure, category: Processing "the ebMS header is not
compatible with expected content based on the associated P-Mode." - in Reliability errors, Add
1 error EBMS:0201 "DysfunctionalReliability" severity: failure, category:
Processing "some reliability
function as implemented by the Reliability module, is not operational, or the reliability state
associated with this message sequence is not valid." - renumber the error code
for "DeliveryFailure"as: EBMS:0202 (instad of 0010) - renumber the error code
for "Failed Authentication" as: EBMS:0101 (instad of 0011) STATUS: Correction by
author. Renumbering is editorial. The new errors are to be discussed. EDIT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 13) Section 2.2.2.1: reword: The response message, in
case a two-way underlying protocol is used: (a) may contain a SOAP
envelope with a SOAP body that is always empty, in which case the One-way MEP is qualified as
"composable". (b) may contain a SOAP
envelope with a SOAP body that is either empty or contains a SOAP Fault. In that case the MEP is
qualified as "fault supporting" in addition to being composable. (c) may never contain a SOAP
envelope, in which case the SOAP One-way MEP is qualified as
"strict". STATUS: Correction by
author. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 14) Section 4.1: reword as: "...ways with another MSH,
engaging in a client-server type of interaction with the remote MSH, without any
need to open a port to incoming requests. This MEP also supports exchanges with a
partner that is intermittently connected: instead of periodically polling for partner presence,
a sending MSH will simply wait for the partner MSH to pull messages." Example: A mobile,
occasionally connected device without static IP address and with limited storage capability can only initiate requests
and receive messages as synchronous responses to these. The One-way Pull MEP
allows this device to enable and control the flow of received messages, and to adjust it to its own
resources. L752: "...without a need to
transfer filter expressions. " --> "...without a need to transfer
and process filter expressions.
" STATUS: Correction by
author. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. --------------------
Operation COntext --> P-Mode ---------------- 15) Section 2.4.3: "...This is done by
sharing the message pipes operation context (see OpCtx_MessagePipes in Section
3)." replace with: "...This is done by
sharing the message pipes processing mode feature (see P-Mode.messagePipes in
Section 3)." Section 5.2.9: "... AgreementRef is a string
value that identifies the operation context that governs the exchange. The recipient of a message MUST
be able to resolve the AgreementRef to this operation context, or to the related agreement between
the Sending and Receiving parties." replace with: "... AgreementRef is a
string value that identifies the agreement that governs the exchange. The P-Mode under which the MSH operates for this
message MUST be aligned with this agreement." Section 7: "... Error generation
and error reporting are treated here as orthogonal concepts. Some aspects of
error handling - in particular,
reporting - are best specified within the operation context for error handling (OpCtx-ErrorHandling) e.g.
as resulting from an agreement." replace with: "... Error generation and
error reporting are treated here as orthogonal concepts. While the generation
of errors is a matter of conformance,
the reporting of errors may be subject to an agreement. Consequently, the way
errors are to be reported is
specified in the P-Mode (P-Mode.errorHandling feature) that results from such
an agreement." Section 7.5: "... Except for some
cases defined in this specification, Error escalation policies are left to an agreement between users,
represented in the operation context of an MSH ( OpCtx-ErrorHandling)." replace with: "... Except for some
cases defined in this specification, Error escalation policies are left to an agreement between users,
represented in the processing mode of an MSH ( P-Mode.errorHandling )." Section 7.7.1: EBMS:0003 : replace
operationn context with "processing mode" Section 8.1 (end): "... Note that
depending on the reliability operation context (OpCtx-Reliability),
notification of delivery failure may be detected on either side." replace with: "... Note that depending
on the reliability processing mode (P-Mode.reliability), awareness of delivery failure may occur
on either side." STATUS: Editorial effect of
replacing Section 3. Follows from agreement on (8) EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft -------------------------
---------------- 16) Section 10 "Reliability
Protocol Bindings" Replace: "It is not the intent
of ebMS to open too many options, but the case of reliability is a particular one, as each
one of the two OASIS reliability specifications has strong arguments in its favor." with: "Although either one of
the above OASIS reliability specifications is sufficient, each one has strong
arguments in favor of its use." In 10.1.3: in the table: ".. two additional
requirements MUST be satisfied" only the two first bullets
apply, bullet 3 should not be part of this sublist. In 10.1.4: in the table: ".. two additional
requirements MUST be satisfied" The two conditions should be
singled out , e.g. with dashes or bullets. STATUS: Correction by
author. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. --------------------------------------------- 17) Insert COnformance Appendix,
latest update (Feb 14). STATUS: 3rd iteration,
latest updates to be discussed. EDIT: Ready for inclusion
review draft. --------------------------------------------- 18) Insert SOAP 1.2 binding
Appendix. Remove previous Appendix 11. STATUS: SOAP 1.2 latest
agreed. Appendix 11 removal to be discussed / confirmed. no general objection. EDIT: ? --------------------------------------------- 19) Security Module (Section
6.3) security of attachments
WSS1.0 vs WSS 1.1 STATUS: Proposal to handle
this by a new COnformance profile (Level 2) in Part1. Linked to Issue 17. EDIT: Need to describe both
WSS 1.0 and WSS 1.1 + WSS-SWA options. --------------------------------------------- 20) Update the packaging figures
Section 5 (fig 7 and 8) - remove StatusRequest /
Response signals. STATUS: Need concrete
proposal EDIT: ------------------------------------------
21) Section 10.2.1: WS-RM binding: should
specify that: - RM QoS applies to an
entire sequence, and is communicated in the CS extension point. (need to decide of a format
for interoperability ! propose a default, can be override in P-Mode ?) STATUS: Need discussion,
concrete proposal |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]