OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

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


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, Sep 15, 2005 5:54 AM
> To: Yalcinalp, Umit; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> 
> Hi Umit:
> First we need to understand the possible uses of the assertion.
> After we do that we can propose a header -- that's the easy part!
> 
> All the best, Ashok

Yes, that is why I was trying to understand your second suggestion which
was not answered by your email. I think you are making some assumptions
with respect to scoping of the assertions which I am trying to uncover. 

Could you clarify in which situations you envision RMD side assertions
needs to communicate RMS in a separate protocol element and whether that
protocol element must be defined by this specification? Typically, the
endpoint would already have the assertion associated (WSDL/Attachment)
which is already available. The scope is the endpoint. I presume you are
thinking of different scoping requirement here. 

Thanks, 

--umit

>  
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] 
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 2:50 PM
> > To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, Sep 14, 2005 12:44 PM
> > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i024
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > I thought the idea was to propose the schema element for this 
> > and its content so we can discuss... If we were to allow a 
> > header, I would like to see what it contains, etc. 
> > 
> > 
> > > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > Perhaps I am missing sth. Why do we need to do that in the protocol?
> > Since this would be associated with a WSDL (presumably) as an 
> > attachment or separate file, wouldn't the RM assertion at the 
> > RMD side be known already. 
> > 
> > > 
> > > All the best, Ashok
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > --umit
> > 
> > 
> 
> 


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