(assuming this is the right thread for
this... can't say I am as lazy as some Canadians for an excuse ;-)
As far as I can tell, there are two
proposals on the table for i050: both consist of removing DAs from "this"
protocol specification, yet they are very different:
1- Proposal currently logged with the issue def: DAs are simply moved
to another document(s):
(a) Remove
all references to delivery assurances from the WS-RM spec
(b)
Describe, in detail, DA's in the policy spec (since we're adding an Assurances
element to that document anyway).
(c ) Create a new deliverable for the
TC; a profiles document. The profiles would describe how the protocol should be
used to implement the various delivery assurances
2- The one informally proposed in October discussions:
That
any mention of DAs be removed altogether from any doc produced by this TC (if I
interpret well)
I would
consider (2) only if I were convinced that the protocol specification *really* supports the DAs that we are after
all chartered to support, and if these DAs were defined in an unambiguous way
for a starter. Two examples of why I think it is premature to shut down any
talk on DA at this stage:
- I note
that InOrder is defined differently in our charter ("Messages
are transferred in the order in which they are sent") and in our draft ("..delivered
in the order in which they are sent").
I do not consider a charter a precise-enough doc to look for an accurate
definition of what we really are supposed to enable in a final spec. DAs have
to be more accurately defined somewhere else.
- at
this time I'm not convinced that InOrder will work if defined as purely
an RMD/AD contract. For this to work out, more needs to be done, e.g. there must
be a requirement (today absent) for the RMS to assign sequence numbers to messages
in the order they have been submitted (sent), which is an obvious precondition
for the order to be restored on destination side (hint: that looks to me like
an AS/RMS contract...).
Jacques
From: Duane Nickull
[mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005
4:48 PM
To: Yalcinalp, Umit; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 050
Pure laziness. Rather than make a
new email I simply copied an existing one and replied. While I changed
the thread subject, I did neglect to delete the existing text in the body. It
is gone now.
Most Canadian are lazy. I am no
exception. What can I say ;-)
May I ask why you not support the first
proposed resolution? I would be interested in hearing a counter argument
for keeping it.
Thanks
Duane
From: Yalcinalp, Umit
[mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com]
Sent: Friday, November 04, 2005
4:18 PM
To: Duane Nickull; wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 050
I am not sure why this is put
forward in this thread, but
A big -1.
--umit
From: Duane
Nickull [mailto:dnickull@adobe.com]
Sent: Friday, Nov 04, 2005 10:27
AM
To: wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 050
After more contemplation, I would like to
suggest we accept Marc's proposal #1 WRT 050. Remove all DA's
from the spec.
Duane