RE: [ws-rx] i050 proposal

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

The list archive doesn't seem to have the content of this message. I'm
resending to try and correct that. Regards, Marc g

________________________________________
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 11:19 AM
To: wsrx
Subject: [ws-rx] i050 proposal

All,

After following the discussion around this issue and thinking carefully
I do believe that attempting to expose the delivery assurances was a
mistake and they should be removed from the spec. I am unconvinced by
the use cases for the need of exposing these. None of them strike me as
things that the core protocol needs in order to function properly or
that would add value to users of the protocol be they developers,
administrators or applications. However I am sympathetic to those that
believe it is important to keep the descriptions of the guarantees in
the core spec. 

Therefore I have prepared the following proposal to remove the delivery
assurance from the RM Policy spec and the language around delivery
assurances in the core spec. Essentially what the changes to the core
spec do is remove references to "delivery assurance" changing them
instead to talk about the "guarantee" in effect. 

A lot of the problem with the delivery assurances being viewed as a
concrete thing that was missing from the specification comes from the
line "This guarantee is specified as a delivery assurance", the key
problem there being the word "specified". These were intended to be
abstract definitions of the guarantees that could be provided by use of
WS-RM and not something to be formally specified and advertised by an
RMD or RMS. This interpretation is strongly backed by these lines from
the contributed WS-RM specification that are still present in the CD: 
"Persistence considerations related to an endpoint's ability to satisfy
the delivery assurances defined below are the responsibility of the
implementation and do not affect the wire protocol. As such, they are
out of scope of this specification."

I believe that if the following proposal, were it to be accepted, would
go a long way to getting us back to work on the core protocol. The
amount of discussion around this topic and issues being raised, none of
which impact the wire protocol, is evidence as to why this subject was
left out of scope for the contributed specification. 

Regards,
Marc g

Proposal to close i050