[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue i024
Doug, I think issues 6 and 9 make issue 24 more relevant/important and I can see at least a solution that covers all three. It certainly makes sense to think about them together and perhaps even find a single/common solution. One question though I have about the existing RM policy assertions is: are they (inactivity timeout, base retransmission interval, ack interval) meant to be shared between RMS and RMD or are they meant as configuration information for implementations? By shared, I mean shared by both the RMS and RMD (and not just attached in a WSDL document). Thanks. -Anish -- Doug Davis wrote: > > What's the relationship between this issue and issues 6, 9? They seem > very similar - almost like 6 and 9 are a subset of 24. Would it make > sense to try to find a single/common solution that covers all? > thanks, > -Doug > > > Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 09/14/2005 03:43:40 PM: > > > This is in response to Sanjay's note asking for a proposal for issue > i024. > > In this case, though, what we are asking for may be a clarification > and not a change. > > > > The WS-RM Policy spec defines a RM assertion. It also specifies how > this assertion > > may be attached to WSDL. What is does not specify is the motivation > behind the > > assertion, how it is used and the messages it applies to. We would > like this clarified. > > > > It is clear that the RM assertion is an 'informational assertion' in > that it is a > > property of the sequence and not a property of the messages in the > sequence. As such, > > it does not make sense for each message to include this information. > > > > Second, policy information is meant to be conveyed by one party in a > conversation to > > the other. In this case, the assertion seems to specify > implementation parameters > > that may be private to the RMS or the RMD. If so, it does not need > to be part of the > > specification. > > > > If, indeed, the RM assertion is to be conveyed from the RMS to the > RMD it can be > > done as a header in the CreateSequence message. The RMD can respond > with a header > > in the CreateSequenceResponse by agreeing, disagreeing or making a > counter proposal. > > > > If the RM assertion has to be conveyed from the RMD to the RMS, this > has to be done > > before the CreateSequence message and requires a new protocol element. > > > > All the best, Ashok > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]