I agree with Chris’ reasoning and
proposal here especially after all of the discussion we have had recently
around i022.
+1 to closing with no action.
From: Christopher B
Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005
10:03 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] i023 proposed
resolution
Regarding issue i023 [1], I believe that definition of
protocol mechanisms related to the proposed
resolution:
"RM
Protocol to support RMD pushing back on the RMS for slowing down or
stopping
(re)transmission of messages."
When
the WS-RM spec was initially published, there was an accompanying white paper
[2]
that
made mention of a potential spec called WS-Transmission:
"WS-TransmissionControl
– A set of constructs for controlling the exchange of
messages
between services to improve reliability by preventing message loss due to
service
unavailability, overloading queues and other causes."
Personally,
I think that the issue of flow-control is orthogonal to RM and really should be
addressed
as a separate concern.
Proposal:
I
would propose that we close this issue with no action.
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/Re#i023
[2]
ftp://www6.software.ibm.com/software/developer/library/ws-rm-exec-summary.pdf
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