RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Definition for "Reliable Message"

["Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com>]

My comments were based on the assumption that a "Reliable Message" is a message that is transmitted over a reliable transport/protocol. 

Duane



 ________________________________________
From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 8:16 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Definition for "Reliable Message"


IJDGI (I just don't get it). 

There's no such thing as a "reliable message". There can be reliable protocols, reliable transports 
but not a "reliable message". There can be a "message that is transmitted reliably" or a "message 
transmitted over a reliable transport/protocol", but not a "reliable message". 

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 

"Duane Nickull" <dnickull@adobe.com> wrote on 10/25/2005 11:01:13 AM:

> Jacques: 
>   
> Would a more generic entry be better to give us latitude to cover 
> future items. 
>   
> "Reliable Message: A message that behaves exactly as the sender 
> designed it to with respect to delivery to its destination or 
> notifies the sender in the event it encountered problems.  The gamut
> of behavior is (not an exclusive list): 
> [insert list of current expectations]" 
>   
> Duane 
>   
> 
> From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 7:41 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Definition for "Reliable Message" 
>   
> Title: Definition for "Reliable Message" 
>   
> Description: there are several references to "reliable message" 
> (section 1, 2 intro, 2.1, 2.3) that are not backed by a clear definition. 
>   
> Justification: Terminology section is defining key concepts, yet 
> does not explain what a reliable message is (and now other 
> definitions are also referencing "reliable message"). The main 
> requirement of inclusion of a wsrm:Sequence element which could back
> an intuitive definition, is not currently related to this expression
> at all, (related to DA instead) which is confusing. 
>   
> Target: core 
>   
> Type: editorial 
>   
> Proposal: 
> 1- Add a terminology entry. It could be: 
> Reliable message: a message submitted by the Application Source to 
> an RM Source via the "Send" operation, 
> for transmission over the protocol defined in this specification. 
> 2-       In 3.1: associate the main protocol requirement (Sequence 
> element) with the definition of "reliable message" instead of with a
> vague requirement of being subject to some DA: 
> Replace: 
> "Messages for which the delivery assurance applies MUST contain a 
> <wsrm:Sequence> header block." 
> With: 
> "Reliable Messages MUST contain a <wsrm:Sequence> header block." 
> (DA and protocol being in fact separately defined, DA should now 
> more abstractly mandate the use of "reliable messages" if we still 
> want to pre-req one to the other.)