[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i061 proposal / directions
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], > This ws Addressing is for the reply to. I think using the back channel for Ack to is a different situation. Tom Rutt 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> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > > > -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]