[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024
From: Ashok Malhotra [mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Monday, Oct 17, 2005 3:44 PM
To: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested wording for i024The presence of the RM assertion indicates that reliable messaging is being usedor MUST be used. 'Optional' means that it MAY be used. In a particular serviceeither 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]
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]