Ashok, the word observed does appear in
the RM Policy doc as a result of the resolution to i009. It is used on lines 233
and 245 of wsrmp-1.1spec-wd-01 [1]. Your request for clarification of the word
observed was directly as a result of that resolution. See the minutes from the
F2F [2] and your own proposed resolution [3].
Personally I disagree with your assertion
above that the word was intended in the sense of wsp:Observed but I didn’t
object as clarifying that term (or removing it) could remove ambiguities for
people that recall wsp:Observed. The motion that was approved by the TC was
“Isssue 24 closed with clarification of meaning of observed to be added
to spec”. Nothing in that motion says anything about clarifying the use
of “observed” in terms of wsp:Observed.
Therefore can we please stick to
clarifying the use of the word observed in RM Policy, specifically around the
text added for the resolution of i009 since that is how the word was introduced
into the spec, as the TC agreed in the resolution to i024?
Regards,
Marc g
1 wsrmp-1.1spec-wd-01 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14793/wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-01.pdf
2 Wed. AM F2F minutes http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200509/msg00244.html
3 Proposal for i024 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200509/msg00242.html
From: Ashok Malhotra
[mailto:ashok.malhotra@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005
5:58 AM
To: Marc Goodner; Yalcinalp, Umit;
Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested
wording for i024
You need to follow the email thread.
There have been some twists and turns in the road.
First, the word 'observed' does not appear
in the RM Policy document.
Second, I realized that the
wsp:Usage='Observed' that appeared in earlier versions
of WS-Policy (but not in the latest) had a
different semantic than we had discussed.
Assertions marked with 'Observed' were
applied to the policy subject and not just
informational.
In view of this, Chris Ferris suggested
that we could define the semantics of the RM
as needed for our purposes. This
seemed OK to me as section 3.4 in the latest WS-Policy
spec that specifies assertion semantics
and conformance is really pretty weak.
All
the best, Ashok
From: Marc
Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005
5:04 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit;
ashok.malhotra@oracle.com; Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested
wording for i024
This proposal does not seem to be inline
with what the TC decided regarding issue i024 [1] at the last F2F. We closed
that issue with the resolution that the meaning of “observed” was
to be clarified and an action (40 [2]) was opened to do that. I don’t see
anything here speaking to that.
Regards, Marc g
1 i024 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14894/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i024
2 AI 40 http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1048
From: Yalcinalp, Umit
[mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005
4:01 PM
To: ashok.malhotra@oracle.com;
Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Suggested
wording for i024
The purpose that it serves is that a
client/RMS do not have to engage WS-RM since it is optional functionality. From
the perspective of the endpoint, there are two alternatives one involving RM
the other not involving RM. If your endpoint was making the RM optional, a
client can communicate with it without engaging it, choosing the latter policy
alternative.
--umit
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 i024
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]