[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] compromise proposal for i122-4
Tom <member> As a member I'm afraid I like this proposal less than either of the individual proposals. I know this looks a little like what we did around polling, but in fact I think there are key differences. Firstly, the dual approach in polling (sequenceid or address) allows for some very different models that meet different needs. The sequenceID model allows a client to carry on without modifying the WS-A headers and work very composably with existing code. The Address based model allows n-m on sequences and endpoints which supports more complex use cases. The result was that although the compromise proposal was more complex, it also satisfied a wider set of use-cases. I believe this proposal satisfies no more use cases, while still requiring both sides to support code they don't want to. In other words, the polling compromise was a compromise through making each side happy, this looks like a compromise through making each side unhappy! </member> <chair> If you'd like this voted on can I ask you to produce a concrete (change-bar style) proposal that the TC can review before this week's call. I'd also like to see the IBM/MSFT and Oracle/SAP proposals amended to include Gil's amendment. As I stated if we don't resolve this on the call then I expect to start a ballot straight away, and I'd like the TC to have text they can evaluate and the monkeys^D^D^D^D^D^D editor's have something clear they can work to once the ballot is closed. </chair> Paul Tom Rutt wrote: > Paul Fremantle wrote: > >> I'm trying to understand the latest "concrete" proposals for the >> security issues. >> >> Based on Doug Buntings note last week, and the discussions since then. >> >> 1) latest from Microsoft and IBM >> <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/200607/msg00036.html> modified by Gil >> - http://lists.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/200607/msg00070.html, and agreed to >> at least by Marc. >> >> 2) latest from Oracle and SAP >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/200607/msg00075.html also modified by >> Gil's http://lists.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/200607/msg00070.html >> >> 3) Close no action from Doug Bunting. >> http://lists.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/200607/msg00088.html >> >> Can the owners of these proposals (and any others I missed) please >> confirm these are the latest that you support. >> >> Thanks >> Paul >> >> >> > I have a new compromise proposal to discuss. > > Let the sending side pick either Oracle or Microsoft way to send STR. > (some implementations seem to be able to support one way better over > the other). > > The receiving side would have to accept create sequence messages with > the str in either place (i.e., in security header with usage > attribute, or directly in > createSequence element in body). > The receiving implementation would look in both places if the > wsrm:UsesSequenceSTR element is present as a soap header. > > Tom Rutt > -- 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]