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

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

A non-optional RMOutbound means that the AS has to

 

a.) provide the RMD necessary to apply RM to the response messages (i.e. accept a CreateSequence message, check sequence headers, send acks back to the AD, etc.)

 

b.) check to make sure all the response messages have RM applied

 

An optional RMOutbound means you don't have to do part (b).

 

Policy specified on the endpoint receiving these outbound messages (if that endpoint is actually defined in a seperate WSDL) would, from its perspective, use RMInbound if it wanted to refer to messages sent by another party to it. I attempted to make this clear with the phrase: "(for the purposes of this specification, the meaning and “inbound” and “outbound” are defined from the point of view of the service that is advertising these policies)".

 

So if you, the AD, have a WSDL that specifies how I, the AS, am supposed to send messages to you and you want me to use WS-RM you use RMInbound. If I, the AS, have another WSDL that specifies how you, the AD, are supposed to send me messages and I want you to use WS-RM I use RMInbound.

 

- gp

 

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 5:09 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] RE: Action Item #0078

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]