“If
we end up keeping Offer around just for the anon replyTo case (which I believe
you said is the main reason for keeping it),”
I think you downplay
the applicability of this to much, but that is understandable from an asynchronous
one-way queue oriented view of the world. From a synchronous req-resp view
being able to use RM with anon clients that are behind a firewall using HTTP as
a transport it is very common. I don’t understand why we would want to
restrict the spec so it couldn’t address that use case.
Similarly Offer may
not seem like much of an optimization for long running sessions from an async
point of view, but for short lived synchronous view of things it is an important
optimization.
I think the spec can
address both queue oriented on-way and synchronous req-repl implementations.
The changes that IBM is pushing for will restrict the latter, possibly even
prevent it, and I don’t understand the objective in limiting the spec
that way.
Your questions below
are good, thanks for compiling them. I’ll get something together today.
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006
10:57 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [i089] a
revised proposal
I believe MSFT has the todo to go off and write down
how anon ReplyTo is supposed to work. In the last interop call we had
there were quite a few questions raised about how things should work and we
need those addressed. I believe some of them were:
How
does the offered seq get shutdown? ie. how does the RMD send a terminate
back to the RMS?
How
can the RMD close the offered sequence if it needs to?
What
should happen when a late arriving (already ack'd) message arrives at the RMD?
What should the response be?
Can
there be two sockets connected to the RMD at the same time and both sending the
same message? What's the response to in each case?
If
request msg #2 is acked (back at the RMS) but response msg #2 isn't acked (back
at the RMD) how can the RMD resend it? I think its possible that the RMS
can get to a point where it received response msg #2 but the ack for it was
lost. So, RMS thinks all is well, but RMD doesn't. Unless the RMS
resends a message (but why would it when it thinks all is well), then the RMD
is stuck. Can't resend and can't close the sequence.
What
specific changes to the spec(s) do we ned to make to clear up these issues?
If
we end up keeping Offer around just for the anon replyTo case (which I believe
you said is the main reason for keeping it), but we can't explain how anon
ReplyTo is supposed to work without hacking up the protocol, I'm not sure its
worth keeping it - esp. not when there are other solutions around that do allow
these scenarios to work without messing up RM.
thanks,
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
02/21/2006 01:12 PM
|
To
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal
|
|
Only time? I think the scenario is
pretty clear so what are the issues with it you see that would prevent it from
working?
If you are suggesting that you want to do
interop on it first then are you likewise suggesting that this issue (and I
would infer i090) should be deferred from being closed until then?
Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:04 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal
Yea, I figured you'd say that :-) that's why I wanted the latest text in
the issue list. W.r.t. your assertion that anon replyTo can work w/RM -
only time (and your proposal) will tell :-)
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
02/21/2006 12:55 PM
|
To
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
RE: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal
|
|
I can’t support this. I think some of the scenarios we have been
discussing around the use of Offer demonstrate that you can get a reliable
response back when using an anon wsa:ReplyTo value. I think the proposal would
be OK if the last sentence, beginning “Note” was struck.
Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 9:31 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] [i089] a revised proposal
For issue 089, I'd like to offer this revised proposed text (same basic idea
just different wording):
After line 441 of [1] add:
Messages sent using this protocol MUST NOT use a wsa:To value that would
prohibit the RM Source from retransmitting unacknowledged messages. For
example, using WS-Addressing's anonymous IRI, without any additional
transmission mechanism, would restrict an RM Source's ability to
re-establishing a new connection to the RM Destination when a re-transmission
of a message is needed. Note, that this implicitly impacts possibles
values used in other places - for example, in wsa:ReplyTo when responses are
expected to be transmitted reliably.
thanks,
-Doug
[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/16095/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-08.pdf