Re: [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Gil,
  still working my way thru this
but I'm trying to understand what it means for an RMOutbound sequence to
be tagged that it "MAY use RM"?  What could the RMS reliably
know what to expect with that "MAY" ?  And, related to my
previous note, how does this RMOutbound assertion relate to any policy
that may be on the endpoint receiving these outbound messages?
thanks,
-Doug

"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>

02/01/2006 02:01 AM

To	<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078

In light of the (pending)
resolutions to i086 and i087 it seemed simpler to present my proposal in
the form of complete drafts of the WS-RM Policy specification. Attached
are two PDF documents. One is a clean version of what the WS-RM Policy
spec would look like with my proposed changes. The other contains change
bars between my proposal and the current editors draft of WS-RM Policy
(cd-02 with Marc's clean ups applied).
 
You will note that my proposal
includes the proposed resolutions to i086 and i087. There was no simple
way to present my ideas without doing this.
 
You may also note that I have
changed line 93 from:
 
"The RM policy assertion indicates that
the RM Source and RM Destination MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM]
to ensure reliable delivery of messages."
 
to:
 
"In general a RM policy
assertion indicates that the Application Source and Application Destination
MUST use WS-ReliableMessaging [WS-RM]
to ensure reliable delivery of messages".
 
I did this because I think
that policy assertions have nothing to do with sequences or the entities
that maintain them (i.e. the RMS and RMD) except that they indicate that
some, unspecified sequence may or must be used to ensure the delivery of
inbound or outbound messages. I think this confusion over endpoints (and
the policies attached to those endpoints) and sequences lay at the heart
of our difficulties with the idea of multiple endpoints with different
policies sharing the same sequence. This change may be considered by some
to be the resolution to a separate issue. If anyone has any objections
I'll back it out and go through the process of raising a separate issue
and making a separate proposal to address it.
 
- gp[attachment "wsrmp-1.1-proposal03-i021.pdf"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] [attachment "wsrmp-1.1-proposal03-i021-diff.pdf"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]