RX PR issue list update and MC issues

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

Before I ask to have this posted let’s do a sanity check.  Since this is the PR issue list I marked all the MC issues as pending per moving them to a new spec and noted they will be carried over.

 

For the current TC discussion of the MC issues while it is a TC doc I suggest a new issue list here:

http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/mc/Issues.xml

I prefer this doing this over reusing the old pre-PR RM issue list as there is new schema since then that is a lot easier to work with. I assume all of them will just get new issue numbers in order as I copy them over. Maybe we could use a convention like mc001 rather than the current i001 form to distinguish them from the PR issue list numbers.

 

I assume we would also continue to use the current RM PR issue list for the next PR round of RM and even MC when it goes out.

 

Does that make sense? If yes then I’ll go ahead and get the new issue list done and posted before this week’s call.

Title: WS-RX TC Public Review Issues List



WS-RX TC Public Review Issues List

Date: 2007/01/09 - Revision: 9

Contents

Issue summary list by status

• New
• Active
• Pending
• Review
• Deferred
• Closed
• Dropped

Statistics

Overall issue counts by related artifact type and broken out by each protocol.

• ws-rm
• ws-rmp

Detailed issue listing

Complete details in order of issue number

• i001 - WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri
• i002 - WS-RM editorial comment concerning MakeConnection
• i003 - WS-Addressing comment/question related to WS-RM MakeConnection
• i004 - Editorial comments
• i005 - Seq Ack Ranges overlap
• i006 - Destination of Seq faults
• i007 - RM Destination lacks a mechanism for cleanly terminating inbound sequences.
• i008 - Underlying protocol bindings
• i009 - "Duplicate Elimination" and "Message Ordering"
• i010 - Can AckRequested be sent independently or not
• i011 - Editorial issues from eBusinss Asia Committee
• i012 - Anonymous and AcksTo EPR scenarios
• i013 - SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous
• i014 - Composition with WS-Addressing
• i015 - RMD polling
• i016 - 2nd Protocol Invariant, none and nack
• i017 - What is the purpose of the WSDL?
• i018 - Piggyback message combinations
• i019 - Use of AckRequested
• i020 - Message ordering and duplication
• i021 - Piggy-backing problematic
• i022 - RMD cannot detect some incomplete Sequences
• i023 - CreateSequenceRefused fault should apply to sender and receiver
• i024 - When to send CloseSequenceResponse vs. SequenceClosedfault
• i025 - wsrm-1.1-schema-200608.xsd is invalid
• i026 - Retransmission
• i027 - Where do Sequence Faults go when the RMS is anonymous
• i028 - MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
• i029 - Opaqueness of URI identifiers not preserved by RM anon URI
• i030 - Facilities to support optional MakeConnection underspecified
• i031 - Scope of MakeConnection is unconstrained
• i032 - back-channel nit
• i033 - back-channel not defined
• i034 - Define gap
• i035 - Delivery Assurances
• i036 - Compliance vs. Conformance
• i037 - Policy Assertions Must be Independent

New Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type
i037		Policy Assertions Must be Independent	ws-rmp	design

Active Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type
i007		RM Destination lacks a mechanism for cleanly terminating inbound sequences.	ws-rm	design	*
i009		"Duplicate Elimination" and "Message Ordering"	ws-rm	design
i020		Message ordering and duplication	ws-rm	design
i021		Piggy-backing problematic	ws-rm	design	*
i022		RMD cannot detect some incomplete Sequences	ws-rm	design	*
i035		Delivery Assurances	ws-rm	design

Pending Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type
i001		WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri	ws-rm	design
i002		WS-RM editorial comment concerning MakeConnection	ws-rm	editorial
i003		WS-Addressing comment/question related to WS-RM MakeConnection	ws-rm	editorial
i004		Editorial comments	ws-rm, ws-rmp	editorial
i005		Seq Ack Ranges overlap	ws-rm	design
i006		Destination of Seq faults	ws-rm	editorial
i010		Can AckRequested be sent independently or not	ws-rm	design
i012		Anonymous and AcksTo EPR scenarios	ws-rm	design
i013		SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous	ws-rm	design
i015		RMD polling	ws-rm, ws-rmp	design
i016		2nd Protocol Invariant, none and nack	ws-rm	design
i017		What is the purpose of the WSDL?	ws-rm	design
i018		Piggyback message combinations	ws-rm	design
i023		CreateSequenceRefused fault should apply to sender and receiver	ws-rm	design
i024		When to send CloseSequenceResponse vs. SequenceClosedfault	ws-rm	design
i025		wsrm-1.1-schema-200608.xsd is invalid	ws-rm	design
i026	Paul Fremantle	Retransmission	ws-rm	design
i027	Paul Fremantle	Where do Sequence Faults go when the RMS is anonymous	ws-rm	design
i028	Jonathan Marsh	MakeConnection preconditions are unclear	ws-rm	design
i029	Jonathan Marsh	Opaqueness of URI identifiers not preserved by RM anon URI	ws-rm	design
i030	Jonathan Marsh	Facilities to support optional MakeConnection underspecified	ws-rm	design
i031	Jonathan Marsh	Scope of MakeConnection is unconstrained	ws-rm	design
i032	Bob Freund	back-channel nit	ws-rm	editorial
i033	Bob Freund	back-channel not defined	ws-rm	editorial
i036	Pete Wenzel	Compliance vs. Conformance	ws-rm	design

Review Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type

Deferred Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type

Closed Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type

Dropped Issues Summary

id	owner	title	protocol	type
i008		Underlying protocol bindings	ws-rm	design
i011		Editorial issues from eBusinss Asia Committee	ws-rm	editorial
i014		Composition with WS-Addressing	ws-rm	design
i019		Use of AckRequested	ws-rm	design
i034	Paul Fremantle	Define gap	ws-rm	editorial

Statistics

ws-rm issue stats

	spec	schema	soap	wsdl	policy	all	total
New	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Active	6	0	0	0	0	0	6
Pending	24	1	0	0	0	0	25
Review	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Deferred	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Closed	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dropped	5	0	0	0	0	0	5
total	35	1	0	0	0	0	36

ws-rmp issue stats

	spec	schema	soap	wsdl	policy	all	total
New	1	0	0	0	0	0	1
Active	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Pending	2	0	0	0	0	0	2
Review	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Deferred	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Closed	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
Dropped	0	0	0	0	0	0	0
total	3	0	0	0	0	0	3

Detailed Listing

i001	WS-Addressing comment on ws-rm related to use of extended anonymous uri	spec - design - Pending
	Description In July comment was made to the WS-Addressing group concerning interoperability issues related to the WS-Addressing WSDL binding and the specific use of the anonymous address specified in the WS-RM public review specification. A WS-Addressing issue cr33 was subsequently opened. It seems clear that after several meetings almost wholly focused on this issue; the WS-Addressing working group is not converging on a resolution. The working group is evenly split between "close with no action" and "keep working toward some resolution". There is a reasonable potential that close with no action may be the result. We therefore request that an issue be raised related to this use of anonymous within the WS-RX Working Group such that alternative forms of reconciliation may be explored. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin W3C WS-Addressing WG Proposal 1 2006-09-25 Proposal 2 2006-10-19 Revised from original. Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i002	WS-RM editorial comment concerning MakeConnection	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description 1) It's not specified in line 809 that MakeConnection appears as a body element rather than a header. In fact, MakeConnection isn't described as an element at all - it's described as an operation. See line 312 as an example of clearer text. 2) Line 811 says "no SOAP envelopes will be returned on the back-channel." I think "envelopes" should be singular. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin W3C WS-Addressing WG Resolution 2006-09-28 Assigned to editors to resolve on Sept. 28th TC call.
i003	WS-Addressing comment/question related to WS-RM MakeConnection	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description As chair of WS-Addressing I am forwarding the following comment made by one of our members. I've been puzzling through the spaghetti of dependant specs for a while, and haven't determined conclusively how to reconcile the WSDL in Appendix B with the MakeConnection example in Appendix C.6. The WSDL describes request-response operations such as CreateSequence, with input CreateSequence and output CreateSequenceResponse messages. While the WSDL doesn't describe a binding for this, it is easy to imagine a straightforward way to bind this to a SOAP/HTTP request-response. However, the MakeConnection example shows a MakeConnection message resulting in a CreateSequence response message, which then results in a CreateSequenceResponse messages, followed by an HTTP 202. That is, the first request corresponds to a one-way message (no problem here), the first response corresponds to a request of a request-response, and the second request corresponds to the response of a request-response. What standard binding could be used to describe this behavior? I can't find any of the specs (WSDL 1.1, WSDL 2.0, WS-I BP) that explicitly say the WSDL-described request message must be mapped to an HTTP request, but I'm also not aware of any implementation that allows requests to be mapped to anything else. Is this just a too-obvious-to-state loophole or am I missing something?" Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin W3C WS-Addressing WG Proposal 1 2006-10-10 Proposal 2 2006-10-19 Resolution 2006-10-19 Proposal 2 accepted on Oct. 19th TC call.
i004	Editorial comments	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description Comments from Gil Comments from Marc Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 ws-rmp revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Gilbert Pilz Resolution 2006-10-26 Proposed changes (in description) accepted on Oct 26th TC call.
i005	Seq Ack Ranges overlap	spec - design - Pending
	Description The RM spec says, w.r.t. Seq Ack Ranges: The ranges SHOULD NOT overlap. Why isn't this a MUST NOT? It smells like an interop issue if we don't know if the other side can deal with it. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Doug Davis Proposal 12006-10-19 Change it to a MUST NOT Resolution 2006-10-26 Proposal 1 accepted on Oct 26th TC call.
i006	Destination of Seq faults	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description From spec: Line 893 RM Destinations that generate Sequence faults SHOULD send those faults to the same [destination] as Acknowledgement messages. The text is a bit unclear. Does it mean that sending it is optional or is the EPR it sends it to optional? I think the intent was just the act of sending it is option, but it must go to the AcksTo EPR. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Doug Davis Proposal 12006-10-19 RM Destinations that generate Sequence faults SHOULD transmit those faults. If the fault is transmitted, it MUST be transmitted to the same [destination] as Acknowledgement messages. Proposal 2 2006-10-26 Destinations that generate faults related to known sequences SHOULD transmit those faults. If transmitted, such faults MUST be transmitted to the same [destination] as Acknowledgement messages. Resolution 2006-10-26 Proposal 2 arrived at and accepted on Oct 26th TC call.
i007	RM Destination lacks a mechanism for cleanly terminating inbound sequences.	spec - design - Active
	Description Stipulate the following scenario: a client and server communicate using asynchronous, two-way, reliable messaging. During the initial sequence creation the client offers a sequence to the server and this offer is accepted. Some number of requests and responses are exchanged using the requested and offered sequences. At some later time the user of the client application causes that application to exit. It is obvious that the client-side RMS should clean up the outgoing, client-to-server sequence by sending a wsrm:TerminateSequence message (possibly preceded by a wsrm:CloseSequence message) to the server-side RMS. What is not clear is what steps the client-side RMD should take to clean up the incoming, server-to-client sequence. There are three basic courses of action: 1.) The client-side RMD could do nothing to clean up the incoming sequence. From a distributed systems viewpoint this seems less than optimal as it leaves the server-side RMS with a "dangling sequence". If the server-side RMS ever tried to use this dangling sequence it would engage the entire RMS machinery for messages that would never get through (send, retry, request acks, retry, request acks, etc.). 2.) The client could wait for a length of time sufficient for it to consider the inbound sequence to be "inactive", then exit. There are a couple of problems with this. Firstly the user that caused the client to exit may grow impatient and attempt to terminate the client by other means. Secondly, outside of the optional expiration time, there is no mutually agreed upon inactivity period for a sequence. 3.) The client-side RMD could send a message to the server-side RMS to indicate that the inbound, server-to-client sequence is being cleaned up. Since the direction of the wsrm:TerminateSequence message is specified by WS-ReliableMessaging 1.1 as being from the RMS to the RMD only, this leaves either the wsrm:SequenceTerminated or wsrm:SequenceClosed faults as the only viable messages for the client-side RMD to use. This brings up all the problems attendant with using faults/exceptions to indicate "normal" application behavior. The server-side RMS may construe the appearance of a fault as an indication of some lower-level problem, etc. Note that, although this issue is discussed in the context of a client application attempting to exit, it is applicable in any situation where the process/VM that "contains" an RMD must exit in a relatively short period of time for whatever reason. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Gilbert Pilz Proposal 12006-10-19 Amend the wording of section 3.6 (Sequence Termination) to indicate that a wsrm:TerminateSequence/wsrm:TerminateSequenceResponse exchange may be initiated by the RMD. Proposal 2 2006-01-06
i008	Underlying protocol bindings	spec - design - Dropped
	Description There is interoperability issue with this specicication, since it doesn't define underlying protocol bindings (e.g.,HTTP bindings). The spec or its profile should explicitly define underlying protocol bindings. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Resolution 2006-10-26 Closed without action on the Oct 26th TC call. Protocol bindings are out of scope of this group, but could be dealt with in WS-I RSP group
i009	"Duplicate Elimination" and "Message Ordering"	spec - design - Active
	Description 2.1 This specification dose not define how to realize "Duplicate Elimination" and "Message Ordering". It is a serious issue for industry organizations in Japan and Asia to adopt the specification. We strongly recommend to define them to make various implementations interoperable. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee
i010	Can AckRequested be sent independently or not	spec - design - Pending
	Description 2.2 It is not clear whether AckRequest message can be sent independently or not. The 3.8 describes: "The RM Source MAY request an Acknowledgement Message from the RM Destination at any time by including an AckRequested header block in any message targeted to the RM Destination." In detail, is the following message which doesn't include <wsrm:Sequence> , allowed to send? If so, the above sentence should explicitly describe it. See the first four lines in Section 3.9. <soap:Envelope> <soap:Header> <wsrm:AckRequested> <wsrm:Identifier>http://example.com/test</wsrm:Identifier> </wsrm:AckRequested> </soap:Header> </soap:Envelope> By the way, the section 3.9 describes: "The RM Destination informs the RM Source of successful message receipt using a SequenceAcknowledgement header block. The RM Destination MAY Transmit the SequenceAcknowledgement header block independently or it MAY include the SequenceAcknowledgement header block on any message targeted to the AcksTo EPR." And it is clear the SequenceAcknowledgement can be sent independently. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Proposal 1 2006-11-01 Resolution 2006-11-09 Proposal 1 acepted on Nov. 9th TC call.
i011	Editorial issues from eBusinss Asia Committee	spec - editorial - Dropped
	Description 2.3 Line697 Editorial "see Section 3.5" should be "see Section 3.8" ? 2.4 Line667 Editorial "see Section 3.1" seems not appropriate. It should be other appropriate section. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Resolution 2006-11-09 Resolved to thank the submitter and inform them the issue has been addressed on Nov. 9th TC call.
i012	Anonymous and AcksTo EPR scenarios	spec - design - Pending
	Description 2.5 Line 704-709 The following sentences needs to be refined or requires examples. " When the RM Source specifies the WS-Addressing anonymous IRI as the address of the AcksTo EPR, the RM Destination MUST Transmit any SequenceAcknowledgement headers for the created Sequence in a SOAP envelope to be Transmitted on the protocol binding-specific channel. Such a channel is provided by the context of a Received message containing a SOAP envelope that contains a Sequence header block and/or a AckRequested header block for that same Sequence identifier." Maybe some examples help reader understand what it meant. It is not clear whether the SequenceAcknowledgement must be sent on *its* back-channel of the underlying transport protocol. e.g., Here is the following scenario: 1.CreateSequence has "Anonymous" value for AcksTo element. 2.RM Source sends a message A with AckRequested on HTTP Request. 3.RM Source sends a message B on HTTP Request. Question: In this scenario, does RM Destination have to send Sequence Acknowledgement for message A on the HTTP Response in 2, but disallow to send it on HTTP Response in 3? Or does the spec allow to send it on the HTTP Response in 3? The spec is not clear about the above scenario. The spec should clarify it. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Proposal 1 2006-11-14 Proposal 2 2006-11-17 Resolution 2006-12-07 Proposal 2 accepted on December 7th TC call
i013	SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous	spec - design - Pending
	Description 2.6 Line339-348 It is not clear what the following sentences means: CreateSequence\AcksTo = wsa:anonymous Does it mean the SequecenAcknowledgement must be on the HTTP Response to the original message? If so, it is beyond the WS-Addressing definition, I believe. By the way, the spec doesn't allow wsrm:Anonymous to be used in AcksTo. If the spec doesn't allow wsa:anonymous in AcksTo, then it should be explicitly described Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Proposal 1 2006-11-14 Proposal 2 2006-11-17 Resolution 2006-12-07 Proposal 2 accepted on December 7th TC call
i014	Composition with WS-Addressing	spec - design - Dropped
	Description 2.7 Section3.9 and Appendix B Needs explanation of ws-addressing composability. It is not clear how ws-addressing/soap request message and response message maps to AckRequested and SequenceAcknoweldgement message. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Proposal 1 2006-11-14 Resolution 2006-11-16 Closed with no action, explanation to be sent to submitter, on Nov 16th TC call.
i015	RMD polling	spec - design - Pending
	Description 2.8 Section3.10 It is not described how you can identify whether the RM destination is polling a message. This could be in RM policy assertion. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 ws-rmp revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin eBusinss Asia Committee Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i016	2nd Protocol Invariant, none and nack	spec - design - Pending
	Description The 2nd Protocol Invariant (sec 2.3) says: Within every Acknowledgement Message it issues, the RM Destination MUST include one or more AcknowledgementRange child elements that contain, in their collective ranges, the message number of every message accepted by the RM Destination. The RM Destination MUST exclude, in the AcknowledgementRange elements, the message numbers of any messages it has not accepted. This isn't true in the case when the SequenceAck is either None or Nack. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Paul Fremantle Proposal 12006-11-09 Change 2nd invariant to: Within every Acknowledgement Message it issues, the RM Destination MUST include one or more AcknowledgementRange child elements that contain, in their collective ranges, the message number of every message accepted by the RM Destination. The RM Destination MUST exclude, in the AcknowledgementRange elements, the message numbers of any messages it has not accepted. If no messages have been received the RM Destination MUST return None instead of an AcknowledgementRange(s). The RM Destination MAY transmit a Nack for a specific message or messages instead of an AcknowledgementRange(s). Resolution 2006-11-09 Proposal 1 acepted on Nov. 9th TC call.
i017	What is the purpose of the WSDL?	spec - design - Pending
	Description The purpose of the WSDL is not terribly clear. I doubt one would actually describe a Web service using this WSDL, as RM is generally considered an infrastructure-level protocol and WSDL typically describes an application-level message exchange. In addition, if machine-processing of this WSDL is expected, not all message exchanges are described – after a MakeConnection message comes _in_ to the service, a CreateSequence message may come _out_, yet CreateSequence is only described as an _in_ message in the WSDL. The limits of the WSDL in describing the complete exchanges of messages should be noted. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Jonathan Marsh Proposal 1 2006-10-19 fix this editorially by adding the following explanatory text to "Appendix B. WSDL": This WSDL describes the RM protocol from the point of view of an RM Destination. In the case where an endpoint acts both as an RM Destination and an RM Source, note that additional messages may be present in exchanges with that endpoint. Also note that this WSDL is intended to describe the internal structure of the RM protocol, and will not generally to appear in a description of an RM-capable Web service. See RM-Policy [ref] for a higher-level mechanism to indicate that RM is engaged. Resolution 2006-11-30 Proposal 1 accepted on Nov 30th TC call.
i018	Piggyback message combinations	spec - design - Pending
	Description 1. Section 3.2 (P. 10) This section describes piggy-back messages, but does not mention receivable message combinations. So, which message combinations can be received could be implementation-dependent. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Sadao Yashiro Proposal 1 2006-12-17 Resolution 2007-01-04 Proposal 1 accepted on Jan 4th TC call.
i019	Use of AckRequested	spec - design - Dropped
	Description 2. Section 3.8 (P. 19) According to the specification, a receiver must return an Acknowledgement when a message contains an AckRequested element, which requests an Acknowledgement. However, it is not specified that a receiver must not return an Acknowledgement when a message contains no AckRequested element. So, I think the implementation should return an AckRequested element whenever a user payload is received. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Sadao Yashiro Proposal 1 2006-11-14 Resolution 2006-11-16 Closed with no action, explanation to be sent to submitter, on Nov 16th TC call.
i020	Message ordering and duplication	spec - design - Active
	Description 3. No description on guaranteed message ordering and duplication elimination. Neither did the previous version. Did the TC determine to set them out of scope? Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Sadao Yashiro
i021	Piggy-backing problematic	spec - design - Active
	Description WS-RM allows for the possibility of adding the wsrm:AckRequested and wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement headers to unrelated messages that are targeted to the "same" endpoint; a concept it refers to as "piggy-backing". There are a number of problems with this concept: See message for complete description. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Gilbert Pilz Proposal 1 2006-10-20 Proposal 2 2006-01-06
i022	RMD cannot detect some incomplete Sequences	spec - design - Active
	Description WS-RM 1.0 [1] defined a sub-element of the wsrm:Sequence header that served to mark the containing message as the last message in a Sequence. WS-RM 1.1 [2] has removed this element. Consequently the RMD has no guaranteed way of determining whether it has received all the messages in a Sequence. This presents obvious drawbacks to an Application Destination that may wish to know if it has received all the data that the Application Source sent it. In addition to this it makes correctly implementing the "incomplete sequence behavior" semantics impossible since the RMD cannot always determine what is and isn't an "incomplete Sequence". For example, suppose an RMS creates a Sequence, sends messages 1-10, then sends a CloseSequence. Suppose that messages 9 and 10 get lost but the CloseSequence message is received by the RMD. The RMS can determine that the Sequence is incomplete (final ack is missing 9 and 10 from the range), but the RMD has no way of knowing, nor is there any way for it to discover, that the Sequence is incomplete. If the IncompleteSequenceBehavior was "DiscardEntireSequence" then the RMS will conclude that all of the messages will be discarded whereas the RMD will, in all likelihood, deliver all of the messages to the Application Destination under the assumption that the Sequence is complete. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Gilbert Pilz Proposal 1 2006-10-20 Proposal 2 2006-10-21 Proposal 3 2006-10-26
i023	CreateSequenceRefused fault should apply to sender and receiver	spec - design - Pending
	Description In section 4.6 the CreaetSequenceRefused fault is defined as a sender fault. This fault should apply to sender or receiver. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Marc Goodner Proposal 1 2006-10-21 Resolution 2006-11-16 Closed with proposal 1 on Nov 16th TC call.
i024	When to send CloseSequenceResponse vs. SequenceClosedfault	spec - design - Pending
	Description In section 4.7 describing the SequenceClosed fault one reason the fault must be returned is that an RMD is “…asked to close a Sequence that is already closed.” However, in section 3.5 that describes CloseSequence it says that for a closed sequence the RMD must process all Sequence Lifecycle messages including CloseSequence. It also says that subsequent CloseSequence messages have no further effect. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Marc Goodner Proposal 1 2006-10-21 Resolution 2006-10-26 Proposal 1 accepted on Oct 26th TC call.
i025	wsrm-1.1-schema-200608.xsd is invalid	schema - design - Pending
	Description Inside wsrm-1.1-schema-200608.xsd, the following constructs are invalid, according to my XML schema processor. See message... Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Eric Rajkovic Proposal 1 2006-10-24 Resolution 2006-11-16 Proposal 1 aaccepted on Nov 16th TC call.
i026	Retransmission	spec - design - Pending
	Description We do not normatively state that any messages must be retransmitted unless the server Nacks them. Since the Protocol Invariants are there to explain how we actually ensure reliable transmission, that is the appropriate place to add this. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Paul Fremantle Owner Paul Fremantle Proposal 1 2006-11-02 Proposal 2 2006-12-14 Resolution 2006-12-14 Proposal 2 accepted on December 14th TC call.
i027	Where do Sequence Faults go when the RMS is anonymous	spec - design - Pending
	Description Suppose the faultsTo, acksTo and replyTo of a message are all WS-A anonymous, but with different reference parameters. Which should the RMD use to respond with a SequenceFault. The answer seems to be the acksTo EPR. But if this is different from the replyTo then the RMD cannot return the fault on the backchannel. Furthermore, if the acksTo is WSRM Anonymous, then it isn't clearly stated that the faults should be polled for using MC. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Paul Fremantle Owner Paul Fremantle Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i028	MakeConnection preconditions are unclear	spec - design - Pending
	Description MakeConnection as defined today relies on the RM Anonymous URI template. The spec does not adequately specify the preconditions necessary for the exchange to be successful. Prior to a MakeConnection message, do both the client and the server have to be in possession of a correctly constructed instance of the RM anon URI template? Of an EPR using this template? The example messages invent a subscription operation in step 1, which indicates that the precise URI and the intent to enable MakeConnection must be negotiated between the RMD and RMS out of band, yet nowhere are these preconditions enumerated. The RM protocol preconditions only list an EPR as a precondition, not the precise form of that EPR, and any intention that buffering of messages should be engaged. What happens if a client does a MakeConnection without all preconditions being satisfied also appears to be underspecified. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Jonathan Marsh Owner Jonathan Marsh Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i029	Opaqueness of URI identifiers not preserved by RM anon URI	spec - design - Pending
	Description See message for description. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Jonathan Marsh Owner Jonathan Marsh Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i030	Facilities to support optional MakeConnection underspecified	spec - design - Pending
	Description See message for description. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Jonathan Marsh Owner Jonathan Marsh Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i031	Scope of MakeConnection is unconstrained	spec - design - Pending
	Description See message for description. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Jonathan Marsh Owner Jonathan Marsh Resolution 2006-12-14 MakeConection moved to new specification which will address this issue.
i032	back-channel nit	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description There are several uses of the term “back-channel” and two uses of “bsckchannel” Please pick one and use it consistently Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Bob Freund Owner Bob Freund Resolution 2006-11-09 Given to editors to correct spelling on Nov 9th TC call.
i033	back-channel not defined	spec - editorial - Pending
	Description The WS-RM spec uses the term “back-channel” several times without defining it outside of the use “protocol specific back-channel” A cursory scan of rfc 2616 HTTP 1.1 does not define the term. It is also not defined in SOAP 1.2 Parts 0-3 Where is the term defined? That definition should be referenced or a definition provided Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Bob Freund Owner Bob Freund Proposal 12006-12-14 Backchannel: When the underlying transport provides a mechanism to return a transport-protocol specific response (with a SOAP message) without initiating a new connection, we refer to this mechanism as a backchannel. Resolution 2006-12-14 Proposal 1 accepted on December 14th TC call.
i034	Define gap	spec - editorial - Dropped
	Description Reading the spec to discuss Issue 22, I notice that we do not define what a "gap" is. It seems reasonably pertinent to some of the discussions we are having, and I think we should more clearly define it. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Paul Fremantle Owner Paul Fremantle Proposal 1 2006-11-14 Resolution 2006-11-30 Closed with no action on Nov 30th TC call.
i035	Delivery Assurances	spec - design - Active
	Description See message Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Kevin Houstoun
i036	Compliance vs. Conformance	spec - design - Pending
	Description Section 1.3 of WSRM and Section 1.4 of WSRMP discuss "compliance" of implementations with the specification. However, that term is widely associated with specific (legal) obligations involving (governmental or other) regulations, mandates and testing/certification authorities. In this case, it would be better stated as "conformance" to the specification. Raised against / Related drafts ws-rm revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Pete Wenzel Owner Pete Wenzel Proposal 1 2006-11-16 Resolution 2006-11-30 Proposal 1 accepted on Nov 30th TC call.
i037	Policy Assertions Must be Independent	spec - design - New
	Description See message Raised against / Related drafts ws-rmp revision: cd04 Related Issues Origin Ashok Malhotra Proposal 1 2006-01-05

Action Item Complete Listing

---

• Follow-Ups:
  • RE: RX PR issue list update and MC issues
    • From: "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>
  • Re: [ws-rx-editors] RX PR issue list update and MC issues
    • From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
  • Re: [ws-rx-editors] RX PR issue list update and MC issues
    • From: Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

---

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

---