RE: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090

["Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>]

I'm fine with removing the optimization language from lines 326-237.
I've never been a fan of that language as I've never agreed this was
just an "optimization".

Marc Goodner
Technical Diplomat
Microsoft Corporation
Tel: (425) 703-1903
Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 


-----Original Message-----
From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] 
Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:49 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090

Marc,

I've not followed the full discussion on this issue, but was curious as 
to why is RMS/RMD restricted to a single EPR (replyTo). We have already 
said that RMS/RMD can span multiple WSDL endpoints, EPRs.

This changes does not make it just an optimization anymore.

-Anish
--

Marc Goodner wrote:
> I believe that Offer provides important functionality and should not
be 
> cut to remove ambiguity with its usage. I would prefer to remove that 
> ambiguity through clarifications to the spec rather than cut the 
> feature. Below is my proposal for how to do so based on WD10.
> 
>  
> 
> Clarification proposal for i090
> 
>  
> 
> Section 2.1
> 
> Line 240 after last sentence add, "When an offer is accepted all 
> messages for the accepted sequence MUST be sent to the <wsa:ReplyTo>
of 
> the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message."
> 
>  
> 
> Line 274 change "to RM Source." to "to the RM Source at the address 
> specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of this message."
> 
>  
> 
> Line 343 change "to RM Source." to "to the RM Source at the address 
> specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message."
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Marc Goodner
> 
> Technical Diplomat
> 
> Microsoft Corporation
> 
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> 
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> 
>  
>