[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i061 proposal / directions
Gil I agree with your pragmatic approach. As Paul Cotton pointed out, we don't want to be caught in a waiting loop on WS-A which is caught waiting for XMLP. Paul Gilbert Pilz wrote: > 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]