Re: [ws-rx] Question about resolution of issue i090

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Matt,

That would fix it.

Do you think it makes sense to make it optional, given that it is a 'may'?

-Anish
--

Matthew Lovett wrote:
> 
> Hi Anish,
> 
> The EPR added by issue 90 gives a place where protocol messages can be 
> sent, but does not restrict the endpoints that can be used for 
> application messages. You might be right that we should have been even 
> looser - perhaps we should have said something more like:
> 
> This REQUIRED element, of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType as specified by 
> WS-Addressing [WSAddressing] specifies *an* endpoint reference to which 
> WS-RM protocol messages related to the offered Sequence *may* be sent.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Matt
> 
> 
> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> wrote on 22/03/2006 16:51:31:
> 
>  > Paul Fremantle wrote:
>  > > I'm not sure I agree that this restricts the sequence to a single
>  > > endpoint. It simply associates the endpoint with the sequence (in the
>  > > same way that there is a CS endpoint associated with the initial 
> sequence).
>  > >
>  >
>  > I'm not sure I follow (very likely missing your point) -- specifically I
>  > don't know what you mean by '... CS endpoint associated with the
>  > *initial sequence*'.
>  >
>  > The resolution of i090 says this about the specified endpoint:
>  >
>  > "This REQUIRED element, of type wsa:EndpointReferenceType as specified
>  > by WS-Addressing [WSAddressing] specifies the endpoint reference to
>  > which WS-RM protocol messages related to the offered Sequence are to be
>  > sent."
>  >
>  > In the non-offered sequence, RMD/RMS are fuzzy concepts not necessarily
>  > associated with a single EPR. For example, we talk about sending
>  > terminate message to the "RMD" not to a particular EPR. Doesn't this
>  > resolution change that for offered sequences? I.e., doesn't this
>  > resolution restrict the RMD to the specified EPR (for the offered 
> sequence)?
>  >
>  > Thanks for the response.
>  >
>  > -Anish
>  > --
>  >
>  >
>  > > Paul
>  > >
>  > > Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>  > >
>  > >> I have a question on the resolution of issue i090 as recorded at
>  > >> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.
>  > php/17304/MinutesWSRX-031606.html
>  > >>
>  > >>
>  > >> The resolution restricts the offered sequence to a single EPR. This
>  > >> constraints/conflicts with the resolution of an issue (can't recall
>  > >> the issue number) that introduced that following text at line 139-140
>  > >> (in CD-03):
>  > >>
>  > >> "Note that this specification makes no restriction on the scope of 
> the
>  > >> RM Source or RM Destination entities. For example, either may span
>  > >> multiple WSDL Ports or endpoints."
>  > >>
>  > >> The intent of that resolution was to allow RMD and RMS to span
>  > >> multiple WSDL endpoints, EPRs etc. Was this conflict discussed during
>  > >> the concall? At least in the minutes this is not captured. If it was
>  > >> discussed, can someone post the rationale for reverting the previous
>  > >> decision? Was there any discussion on making
>  > >> /wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Endpoint optional?
>  > >>
>  > >> Thx!
>  > >>
>  > >> -Anish
>  > >> --
>  > >
>  > >