Well, Chris, maybe you just defined "reliable
message" ;-)
I don't have any qualms removing "reliable
message" from the spec (I just note it has been there for a long time
though ...I didn't put it in) I just find it convenient so that we
can use 2 words instead of 5 or 7 !
So one way or the other, there is some
editorial clean-up to do here, I think.
Cheers,
Jacques
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.)