RE: [ws-rx] i089 - a revisted proposal

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

Marc,
  could you reword your 2nd para
(the "The only conclusion..." one) I'm a bit lost.    Did
you mean to say "can" instead of "can't"  ??
-Doug

"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

04/27/2006 03:03 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] i089 - a revisted proposal

Doug,
 
When I look at your sample
message flow on page 3, if I remove RM from the equation what I see is
a one way in message and a one way out message that need to be correlated
(presumably with wsa:RelatesTo) to form a complete req-resp MEP. 
 
The only conclusion I can
draw from that is that you can’t get the response (the one way out) with
an anonymous uri for the replyTo on the request (the one way in) whether
or not RM is involved. 
 
So why is this a problem
for RM to solve?
 
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: Thursday, April 27, 2006 7:49 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] i089 - a revisted proposal
 

Based on feedback we've received I've attached an updated proposal for
i089.  The basic idea is still the same but I think we've cleaned
things up quite a bit and eliminated some of the confusion that some people
thought the old proposal introduced.  This one is pretty small and
still addresses all of the use-cases we've heard about.  The biggest
change is that we've made it more clear that GetMessage is designed to
simply (re-)establish a transport-specific back-channel, nothing more.
(sorry, no cute poem :-) 
thanks, 
-Doug