RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

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

Ashok,

Some implementations may indeed be all-or-nothing.
Others may support
RM as optional QoS. I don't understand
the problem you have with this. No one
says that an endpoint MUST use the wsp:Optional="true".
It is part of WS-Policy.
If an endpoint is all-or-nothing, then
it simply doesn't use that form of the
assertion.

I certainly dont think that you would
claim that the following policy statement

> <wsp:ExactlyOne> 
>   <wsp:All> 
>     <wsrm:RMAssertion>...</wsrm:RMAssertion>
>   </wsp:All> 
>   <wsp:All/> 
> </wsp:ExactlyOne> 

...is invalid, or that the RM Assertion
spec needs to explicitly prohibit such
usage. Would you?

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

Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote
on 10/17/2005 06:43:43 PM:

> The presence of the RM assertion indicates that reliable messaging
> is being used
> or MUST be used.  'Optional' means that
it MAY be used.  In a 
> particular service
> either it is being used or it's not being used,
what purpose does 
> the MAY serve?
>  
> All the best, Ashok 
>  
> 
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:28 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024

> 
> Ashok, 
> 
> What makes you think that the wsp:Optional='true' on the RMAssertion
> makes no sense? 
> 
> <wsrm:RMAssertion wsp:Optional="true">...</wsrm:RMAssertion>
> 
> is the equivalent of 
> 
> <wsp:ExactlyOne> 
>   <wsp:All> 
>     <wsrm:RMAssertion>...</wsrm:RMAssertion>
>   </wsp:All> 
>   <wsp:All/> 
> </wsp:ExactlyOne> 
> 
> which translates to, the RMS may choose to use RM or not at its discretion.
> 
> Why does that not make sense? The semantic of the wsrm:RMAssertion
> is *not* purely informational. 
> Its presence means that the endpoint either requires or supports (in
> the case of wsp:Optional=:true") 
> the use of the WS-RM protocol. 
> 
> 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 
> 
> Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on 10/17/2005
05:30:03 PM:
> 
> > Please see attached document.
> > 
> > The wording is written as a delta to the WS-RX Policy document.
> > The words highlighted in green are suggested additions and the
> > paragraph highlighted in red is a suggested deletion.
> > 
> > There are additions and deletions to section 2.3 Assertion Attachment
> > and a new section to be added between sections 2.4 and 2.4 entitled
> > Assertion Semantics.  
> > 
> > I also suggest that the attribute
> > /wsrmp:RMAssertion/@wsp:Optional="true" on line 158
of section 2.2 be
> > removed as it makes no sense.
> > 
> > The semantics assume that the assertion is purely informational
and
> > does not appear as a header in neither the messages in the sequence
nor
> > the signaling messages.
> > 
> > Some of the people in the WS-RX WG have expressed the opinion
that 
> > that WS-RX policy information should be made available from the
> > signaling messages 
> > (CreateSequence, CreateSequenceResponse, etc) so that the RMS
can 
> > adjust its retransmission interval and perhaps its inactivity
> > timeout based on the acknowledgement interval of the RMD and
the RMS
> > can perform some optimization 
> > based on the delivery assurances between the RMD and the AD.
 This is a
> > reasonable position.  If the WG so decides, I can modify
the wording to
> > reflect these semantics.
> > 
> > All the best, Ashok
> > [attachment "Issue24.sxw" deleted by Christopher B
Ferris/Waltham/IBM]