[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i061 proposal / directions
My main objection to the current proposal is that it requires the existence of a back-channel along the entire message path between the RMS and the RMD. I think most of us are aware of the sturm und drang around this issue (BP 1.1 says you don't have a back-channel [1], WS-A is currently entertaining a definition of "one way over SOAP 1.1" that precludes a back-channel [2], the WS-Addressing [3] and WS-Description [4] WG's have each asked the XMLP WG to define a one-way SOAP MEP and corresponding HTTP binding that may include a back-channel, etc.) Considering that the various specifications in this area are still in flux, I don't think we can presume any uniformity of implementations (in regards to one-way messages using SOAP 1.1) any time soon. That being the case I think it's a very bad idea for WS-RM to specify behavior that presupposes the existence of a back-channel in the case of one-way SOAP 1.1/HTTP. Its important to stress that I'm raising this argument as a *practical* matter. I'm not making any arguments about how one-way SOAP 1.1/HTTP *should* behave (nor do I think it is the function of the WS-RM TC to consider such arguments). I'm simply noting that, as of today, you can't make assumptions about how the underlying SOAP/HTTP stack will behave with regards to one-way messages and back-channels. I think that we should do the following instead: 1.) Note the circumstances under which the use of the anonymous URI for AcksTo may result in the inability of the RMS to receive acknowledgments. 2.) Specify a mechanism (synchronous polling via an empty SOAP body and an AckRequested header?) that allows the RMS to get the acknowledgements in cases where (1) pertains. I'll be sending out a more formal proposal for this tomorrow. - g [1] http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1.1-2004-08-24.html#One-Way_Op erations [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Dec/att-008 0/ws-addr-wsdlProposedRevision1.62.html#wsdl11oneway [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-addressing/2005Oct/0003.ht ml [4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2005Jun/0060.html > -----Original Message----- > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 9:47 PM > To: Yalcinalp, Umit; Patil, Sanjay; Doug Davis > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: [ws-rx] i061 proposal / directions > > Retitled to indicate topic better. > > The proposal is in the issue list already. Not sure if there > has been any updates to this one or not, I don't recall any. > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > s.xml#i061 > > > Marc Goodner > Technical Diplomat > Microsoft Corporation > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Yalcinalp, Umit [mailto:umit.yalcinalp@sap.com] > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 5:24 PM > To: Patil, Sanjay; Marc Goodner; Doug Davis > Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion > on the 1/19 conf-call > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 4:58 PM > > To: Marc Goodner; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > I don't remember having seen a clear and specific proposal on this > > issue yet. If I may have missed it, could you please point > me to the > > same. > > > > The current proposal in the issue text is more of a > discussion of the > > matter and alludes to different alternatives. For example, the > > proposal as it stands suggests two ways of deciding when to use a > > backchannel (in the case where the AcksTo EPR has anon > value) - a> EPR > > comparison, and > > b> correlation with sequence identifier. > > > > The proposal also assumes a particular disposition of the WS-I BP > > compliance issue about using a SOAP response on the backchannel for > > one-way messages. I am not sure if the entire TC has agreed to this. > > +1. > > Based on my experience/discussions in WS-A, it is not clear > to me whether there is yet a universal agreement to allowing > anonymous Acks on the backchannel since it will require a > SOAP envelope on the HTTP response just to be able to include > protocol headers. > > If the idea is to agree on this behaviour in this tc and push > the requirement elsewhere, that is an approach. Whatever we > do, however, we need to make sure that the protocol > requirements are "allowed" to be expressed since the stack > /the specs need to compose together. Even if we may decide to > break/extend the rules here, if it is prevented by the > baseline specs it will not be desirable. Hence, we can not > avoid taking WS-A/XMLP into account eventually. > > > > > I feel that the group needs to further discuss this issue on the > > mailing list first. > > >I am quite willing to approach the WS-A WG chair with a formal > >requirement coming from the WS-RX TC once we discuss and formulate > >succinctly our needs. > > > > Thanks, > > Sanjay > > --umit > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] > > > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 16:18 PM > > > To: Patil, Sanjay; Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for > discussion on the > > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > When are we going to take on i061? Doug had a specific > proposal for > > > that one some time ago that did not depend on waiting on > another TC > > > or WG. My understanding is that Addressing was waiting on > XP. That > > > seems indirect enough that we shouldn't hold our breath, > should we > > > move on? > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > > Technical Diplomat > > > Microsoft Corporation > > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/members/mrgoodner/ > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com] > > > Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 3:19 PM > > > To: Doug Davis; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for > discussion on the > > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > > > > You are right. i085 (proposed-01 on 1/12 conf-call) was > resolved on > > > the last call itself. > > > > > > Here is the updated proposed list of issues (i085 > replaced by i082): > > > > > > a> i082 Level of "response message" unclear, for SequenceResponse > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i082 > > > > > > b> i086 Alternative approach for MaxMessage > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i086 > > > > > > c> i087 Acknowledgement Interval in CreateSequenceResponse > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i087 > > > > > > d> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scope > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i075 > > > > > > e> i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i083 > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > > > Sent: Monday, Jan 16, 2006 12:39 PM > > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for > discussion on the > > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > > > > > > > I might be remembering incorrectly but I thought we adopted the > > > proposal for i085 already (and I think the notes refelect that as > > > well). > > > > > > -Doug > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> > > > > > > 01/16/2006 03:32 PM > > > > > > > > > To > > > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > cc > > > > > > Subject > > > [ws-rx] Proposed list of issues for discussion on the > > > 1/19 conf-call > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The first three issues below are essentially the ones that we > > > accepted on the last call (1/12). The issues list is > currently being > > > updated and therefore the URLs for these three issues may become > > > active some time later today! > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Sanjay > > > > > > A> i085 CloseSequence element is inconsistent > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i085 > > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > > es.xml#i08 > > > 5> > > > > > > B> i086 Alternative approach for MaxMessage > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i086 > > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > > es.xml#i08 > > > 6> > > > > > > C> i087 Acknowledgement Interval in CreateSequenceResponse > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i087 > > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > > es.xml#i08 > > > 7> > > > > > > D> i075 Case of multiple RM Policies and DAs within an RMD scope > > > > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i075 > > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > > es.xml#i07 > > > 5> > > > > > > E> i083 Tom Rutt Fault Messages for Terminated Sequence > > > > > > http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssue > > s.xml#i083 > > > <http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/ReliableMessagingIssu > > es.xml#i08 > > > 3> > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]