RE: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal

[Jacques Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Title: RE: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal

Anish:

Do we really need to keep this "static advertising" within scope of this specification?
We know that some out of band communication is certainly expected for publishing DAs, etc, which is now considered out of scope. We could expect a client to learn about parameters the same way.

Also the static advertising we are talking about here is about protocol parameters that some implementations may want to change from one sequence to the other, based on various factors (CPU load, negotiation...) that may have little to do with the service definition. It is unclear what semantics a presence in WSDL would have - mostly advisory as you say.

That is why I'd propose to discuss new issue "proposed-03" asap, before i075.

- Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 11:35 AM
To: Doug Davis
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i075: a proposal

I mostly agree with the statement below.

But I think there is an issue with the idea of attaching RM policy
parameters to WSDL endpoint given the resolution of issue i010 -- which
states that both RMS and RMDs can span multiple endpoints (EPRs) and/or
multiple WSDL endpoint/ports.

The fundamental unit/scope in WSRM is the Sequence and RM policy
assertion parameters should be associated with the Sequence rather than
a WSDL port/endpoint (I know that there is a possibility that we may end
up with zero RM policy parameters in the WSRM policy doc, but given the
extensibility within the assertion, there may be parameters specified
that are not defined by the WSRM policy document). Which is why, I think
it makes sense to include such parameters in the CreateSeqenceResponse
rather than in the WSDL. But there is certainly a need to advertise the
policy assertion/parameter through WSDL so that it is statically (before
creating the Sequence) available. But I view such WSDL attachment (RM
policy parameters, not the assertion itself) as advisory rather than
definitive. I think anything present in the CreateSeqenceResponse is
definitive. I.e., parameters in the CSR trumps parameters in the WSDL.

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> I thought Umit had proposed this but I couldn't find the email, sorry if
> its a dup, but just to make sure there's a formal proposal out there, I
> believe all we need to do for issue 075 is to add this text:
>
> After line 485 in [1]:
> The RM Policy parameters in effect for each Sequence is governed by the
> endpoint
> that was used for the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message.
>
> [1]
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15177/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-01.pdf
>
>
> -Doug