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] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13 conf-call


In your discussion points on i008 you noted that having a different
assertion on each operation would require separate sequences for each.
So why would the RMS need to signal anything about the DA to the RMD?
Each operation with a different DA would have its own sequence and there
would be no need for the RMS to signal anything. So even if your
proposal for i008 that kept the granularity at the endpoint subject
level was not accepted and the assertion did become more granular I
still don't see the need for the RMS to signal anything about the DA.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to accomplish. Are you
thinking of attaching multiple DAs to the same operation if the
granularity of the assertion was finer? I could see that if you could do
this you would require additional features added to the protocol to
signal which DA the RMS chose. I don't think this makes any sense
though. Why would an RMS choose any one DA over another for the same
operation? Why would an RMD expose different DAs for the same operation?

So either way I think i006 should be closed with no action.


-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:28 PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
conf-call

Marc Goodner wrote:

>I don't think i006 needs to be linked to the others. As Tom already
>proposed on this issue no matter the outcome of i008 and i021 this
would
>be outside the scope of WS-RM. Why don't we go ahead and try to close
at
>least that one?
>  
>
I disagree, if we have operation level policy attachment, then we need a

way to signal which DA
level is on a given sequence.

My proposal to 6 assumed the proposal to 8 would pass.

Tom Rutt

Thus we need to agree to 8 before we can discuss 006.

Tom Rutt

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 11:56 AM
>To: tom@coastin.com
>Cc: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on 10/13
>conf-call
>
>Tom Rutt wrote:
>  
>
>>Christopher B Ferris wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Sanjay,
>>>
>>>I can appreciate that POV, but frankly, I think that the protocol
>>>      
>>>
>spec 
>  
>
>>>is far more important.
>>>There aren't many outstanding issues and it would be great if we
>>>      
>>>
>could 
>  
>
>>>close on the issues
>>>we have and nail down the protocol spec sooner rather than later.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>Issue 006 could have impact on the protocol spec, and it depends on 
>>issues 008 and 021.
>>
>>However, I agree that the email around these proposed solutions has
>>    
>>
>not 
>  
>
>>yet reached concensus.
>>
>>Thus I do not mind postponing resolution of 6, 8, and 21 until further
>>    
>>
>
>  
>
>>discussion occurs on the list.
>>
>>    
>>
>
>Postponing these issues until there is further discussion make sense to

>me too.
>
>-Anish
>--
>
><snip/>
>
>  
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt	email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133




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