RE: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090

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

I don't think we can talk about i089
or i090 until we understand how anon ReplyTo is supposed
to work.  Based on all of the discussions
that have come up from anon AcksTo - which I actually
think everyone agrees how that's support
to work - we're adding some clarifying text.  I think that
anon ReplyTo - which in no way has the
same kind of consensus around it - will need even more.

I'm still waiting for a proposal (or
just a note) that explains how all of the questions I raised 
in [1] are answered.

To Marc's specific proposal - I think
its a mistake to link the Offered sequence with the CS's
replyTo.  IMO, that EPR will be
anon most of the time so even without the anon ReplyTo issue
we'd prevent people from using Offered
sequences in the truly async use-cases.  And then of
course we have the issue Anish raised
- Sequences can span multiple EPRs and this text
limits it.  Impls can choose to
do that but I don't think the spec should - at least not w/o more
discussions around how anon ReplyTo
is supposed to work.

So - I'd like to propose that a formal
AI be opened up against MSFT (Marc? Stefan?) so we
have a reminder that there is still
an outstanding "todo" for them to get back to us on how they
see this all working.

thanks,
-Doug

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200602/msg00193.html

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

02/23/2006 03:43 PM

To	"Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
cc	<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090

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/
> 
>  
>