RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i012

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Lei,

I don't think that it is appropriate to unnecessarily (IMHO) constrain the 
use of the protocol
such that it cannot be used to deliver acks on the HTTP response to a 
one-way message.
Note that the XML Protocol WG is working on definition of the semantics of 
a binding for
oneway MEP and that there is also likely to be provision for optional SOAP 
element in the
HTTP response (certainly for the case of a SOAP fault returned to support 
the robust
oneway WSDL mep).

I *strongly* disagree with this proposal. We are hearing from customers 
that the use case
that you are specifically excluding is one that is highly important to 
them.

Frankly, I think that the behavior of the intermediary that you describe 
is a bug rather than
a feature.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Lei Jin" <ljin@bea.com> wrote on 08/24/2005 05:59:54 PM:

> I disagree.  Here is a use case that shows a problem with an anonymous 
AcksTo.
> 
> Node A  --->  Intermediary ---> Node B
> 
> Node A tries to send messages reliably to Node B.  For simplicity, let's 
assume these are all 
> oneway messages.  Node A establishes a reliable sequence with an 
anonymous AcksTo and starts to 
> send messages.  The messages first go through the Intermediary which has 
B's WSDL and figures out 
> these are oneway messages.  So it decides to send back a http 202 to A 
and close the connection 
> before forwarding the message on to Node B.  Now Node B gets the message 
and wants to send back an
> Ack synchronously (due to the anonymous Ack).  But it can't send the Ack 
since the connection 
> between Node A and the Intermediary is already closed.
> 
> Basically the problem is that the introduction of anonymous AcksTo 
converts a oneway MEP into a 
> two-way MEP.  In order for it to work, all intermediaries will need to 
be WSRM aware and keep 
> connections open in case synchronous acks need to be sent back.
> 
> Proposal:
> 
> * Specifically call out that the anonymous IRI is not to be used in 
AcksTo.
> * AcksTo may take on the value of the "not allowed" IRI, 
"http://www.w3.org/@@@@/@@/addressing/none
> ".  When AcksTo takes on this value, acknowledgement will only be sent 
back in response to 
> AckRequest messages.
> 
> Lei
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 3:16 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org; Lei Jin; Christopher B Ferris
> Subject: [ws-rx] Proposal for i012

> I believe Chris Ferris had made a similar proposal earlier but in the 
interest of a +1 and trying 
> to move this along I?ll make a more formal proposal.
> 
> Proposal:
> WS-RM was designed to be used with WS-Addressing in which the behavior 
of the anonymous URI is 
> defined as an address in an EPR. There is no requirement that the 
anonymous URI must be used and 
> there are valid applications of it, therefore this issue should be 
closed with no action