Re: [ws-rx] i089 joint proposal

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Doug,

A joint proposal from whom?  Which options are now off the table from 
the submitting group's perspective?

Apart from a number of typographic and grammatic errors I'll leave to 
out esteemed monkeys and / or editors (assuming for a millisecond this 
gets accepted), a few questions:

    * Could you please explain (I know, one more time) how you see this
      alternative SOAP binding to be in scope for the WS-RX TC?  I am
      most concerned about the

      [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ] ?

    portion and its implications.  I am having trouble seeing this
    aspect from your perspective.  Why is it our responsibility to solve
    the one-direction-works-better transfer protocol issue for every
    WS-RM exchange, let alone everyone?

    * The text remains unclear about piggy-backing response messages on
      the underlying protocol back channel.  If you and I are using HTTP
      to communicate, may I place response messages in the HTTP response
      to messages from the same sequence?  Can you switch to (and from)
      using MakeConnection at any point, say when you haven't sent an
      outbound message in the sequence for some interval?
    * "this URI is semantically equivalent to the WS-Addressing
      anonymous URI if a protocol-specific back-channel is available"
      seem to answer some of the above bullet in the negative,
      disallowing one of the more interesting use cases.  That is, (as a
      corner case perhaps worth solving in this TC), I am interested in
      getting additional information back to you after you are done
      sending me messages.  I don't however know in advance when you'll
      be done.  I'd certainly rather we didn't have to waste time with
      extra MakeConnection round trips while you are still sending me
      regular messages in the sequence (over HTTP).  It seems if a back
      channel is available we must always use it.
    * If we get this far: Why send the whole URI in the wsrm:Address
      element?  Why not just provide the supposedly-sufficient UUID?
    * Minor:

[ <wsrm:Identifier> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Identifier> ] ?

[ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ] ?

    should probably be

([ <wsrm:Identifier> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Identifier> ]
[ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ] ?)
| [ <wsrm:Address> /xs:anyURI/ </wsrm:Address> ]

    or some such.

thanx,
   doug

On 31/05/06 19:12, Doug Davis wrote:
> All,
>   the planets have aligned and we managed to come up with a joint 
> proposal for the TC to discuss on tomorrow's call.  Enjoy!