RE: [ws-rx-implement] [Fwd: FW: about InteropScenarios 0.8,scenario 1.4]

[Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

OK, I'll try and revise the doc before tomorrow's call so we have a stable phase 1 interop spec to reference.

-----Original Message-----
From: Durand, Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 12:12 PM
To: Marc Goodner; Paul Fremantle; ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-implement] [Fwd: FW: about InteropScenarios 0.8, scenario 1.4]

Right - that is fine, and capture the intent.

To be consistent though, in 1.4, I think we need to be specific in the same way for the TerminateSequence message, and add a similar sentence at the end ("the TerminateSequenceResposne may be sent..."), that also align with other scenarios that are specific about this.

Cheers,
Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 13, 2006 10:26 AM
To: Paul Fremantle; Durand, Jacques R.;
ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx-implement] [Fwd: FW: about InteropScenarios 0.8, scenario 1.4]

I'm not sure I agree with this text. How about the following, I think it captures the intent of the proposal below.

Replace:
"The CreateSequenceResponse is the first message to be sent on the "back channel."

With:
"The CreateSequenceResponse may be sent on the HTTP back channel or, when possible, via a new HTTP connection to the ReplyTo URI. Clients must be prepared for either case."

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
Sent: Monday, September 04, 2006 3:26 AM
To: ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx-implement] [Fwd: FW: about InteropScenarios 0.8, scenario 1.4]

Forwarded from Jacques

------------------------------------------------------------------------

*From:* Durand, Jacques R.
*Sent:* Thursday, August 31, 2006 4:19 PM
*To:* ws-rx-implement@lists.oasis-open.org
*Subject:* about InteropScenarios 0.8, scenario 1.4

(not sure I can post on this list yet... only "observer" so far - Paul can you forward to list in case? Thx.)

Comment on Interop Scenarios 0.8:

Scenario 1.4 should not state:

"... The CreateSequenceResponse is the first message to be sent on the "back channel." "

Indeed, the XML for CreateSequence messages does not use ReplyTo:anonymous (consistently with all other exchanges in this
scenario)

So this means the CSR SHOULD (not a MUST, though) be sent back on a new HTTP connection , per WSA SOAP binding spec (".. When "--/anonymous" is not specified for the response endpoint, then ... Any response message SHOULD be sent using a separate connection and using the address value specified by response endpoint.")

Propose to replace:

" The CreateSequenceResponse is the first message to be sent on the "back channel."

With:

" The CreateSequenceResponse, like other response messages to RM protocol messages for sequence management, is sent over a new HTTP connection to the ReplyTo URI."

Now, assuming some destination implementation may decide to not follow what is so far only a WSA recommendation, the client side should not choke on it. So one could add:

"in case an RMD sends back these responses over the back-channel, the client must accept these."

Jacques


--

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com