RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal

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

You never answered my questions related to WSA in 3 below. I'd really
like to understand your use of messageId here to get a specific response
message particularly after today's call. On that call you and Chris both
indicated you thought that a RMD not only had the right to not return a
response for a previously acked request, but that it might for some
reason have substantial difficulty doing so. Why if you don't perceive
this as a problem in a WSA based system do you view it as so problematic
in a RM based system? Particularly when the response for the acked
request is also reliable and has not been acked itself, obviously the
RMD has to be holding that response. What in a WSA based system says the
response has to be held anywhere for retransmission?

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 21, 2006 10:23 AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: wsrx
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i089 proposal

Given 1 and 2, yes some text that clarified that not only is this
specific to RM but that a general solution would be preferable would be
best.

On 3 I suppose, I don't like seeing WS-A headers in the body of a
message though. Do you really even need the response for a specific
message? Why not return any responses or messages for that sequence that
have not been acknowledged? And what are you talking about when you say
this is tied to the offered sequence? What offered sequence? I don't see
anything here that ties the use of your GetMessage proposal to an
offered sequence.

I don't understand section 4.2 in your proposal at all. What does this
have to do with the rest of this proposal?

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


-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 20, 2006 1:57 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: wsrx
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] i089 proposal

Marc

1) Yes - I completely aimed this to be a specific model for RM. I would 
be happy to include language that indicates that if a more general 
purpose firewall crossing mechanism was in place this should not be
used.
2) The wsrm:Identifier is a required part of my proposal, and therefore 
this proposal is completely tied to the use of RM.
3) The suggestion of using messageNumber is interesting. The motivation 
for using a message ID was that there may be situations where I really 
want the response to a given message. We do not - so far - have any 
concept of a response to a given RM messageID, so that seemed like a new

concept to me, whereas WS-A systems do keep track of responses to given 
messageIDs. But I'm not averse to your suggestion. However I wish to 
make clear that in my proposal you MUST have both the Identifier and the

messageID - so it is still very closely tied to the offered sequence.

Paul

Marc Goodner wrote:
> I hope that this is scoped to RM and not a general purpose polling
> mechanism. I assume that is your intent in that you use the
> wsrm:Identifier and indicate that you see this being part of the core
> spec. Still it seems like including language that indicates that would
> be advised, particularly noting that if there were a general purpose
> polling mechanism that it might be preferred over this one.
>
> So following from that why is MessageID in the GetMessage? Isn't the
> identifier enough? If it isn't wouldn't the addition of
> wsrm:MessageNumber do the trick?
>
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, April 06, 2006 12:40 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] i089 proposal
>
> Folks
>
> At the F2F I took away an action to come up with a proposal for i089 
> before the call. I'm sorry its so close to the call.
>
> I've attached a proposal for review. This is a work in progress, but I

> think it helps call out some of the issues involved around i089.
>
> I think the most important questions for the TC are:
>
> (1) How does a customer/user use WSRM in a two-way scenario if one
side 
> is anonymous?
> (2) Adding a "GetMessage" makes the protocol more symmetric, but also 
> might overlap with a wider non-reliable solution to this problem. Is
it 
> in the scope of this TC to add this?
> (3) In the case we do add it, what criteria do we use to select which 
> message to request.
> (4) Is this a generic solution (i.e. can the RMD request messages from

> the RMS in all cases) or special cased to anonURI scenarios?
>
> Paul
>
>   

-- 

Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology, WSO2 and OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://feeds.feedburner.com/bloglines/pzf
paul@wso2.com

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com