[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
Doug I don't understand your point, but I'm glad you found something amusing. If the element wsrm:CreateSequence/wsrm:Offer/wsrm:Endpoint is a WSA Anonymous Endpoint then I believe that MC must be used, if only to receive Close/Terminate messages. However, the spec is obviously lacking clarity because MC could be used for situations where it doesn't have to be. Paul Doug Davis wrote: > > LOL thanks for the levity on an otherwise boring Tuesday. > > Any use of WSA's anonymous in an EPR can't possibly be used in this > way. First, show me where in any spec it says this. Second, its not > very hard to imagine cases where the RMS (client) wants its Acks to be > sent back synchronously even if its responses are sent asynchronously > to some other endpoint. The RMS can easily get its acks even w/o MC by > sending an AckRequested. Overloading the meaning of the WSA anonymous > URI in this way is asking for interop issues and would limit the set > of scenarios RM could be used by adding an implication that some > EPR+wsa:Anon == must use MC - especially when some people in this TC > have made it clear they may not support MC at all (in any form). > > thanks > -Doug > __________________________________________________ > STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group > (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com > > > > *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>* > > 11/14/2006 12:26 PM > > > To > Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com> > cc > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, > Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject > Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear > > > > > > > > > > Actually I think in addition the CS/Offer/Endpoint should be anonymous > for the precondition. > > Paul > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > > I believe that with MC(SequenceID) I think there is a clear > > preconditiion, which is CS+Offer+Anonymous-Acks-To. > > > > Paul > > > > Doug Davis wrote: > >> > >> Sorry, not true. MSFT's proposal does not address any preconditions > >> since the ability to support MC should be known before the CS is > >> sent, not after. Sending a MCRefued in response to a MC is too late > >> in the game. No matter which version of MC lives on I think some > >> policy assertion will be needed so the server-side can advertise that > >> it will support MC, or not. I was assuming we could use this issue to > >> add that. > >> > >> As for Jonathan's text about either side needing to be in possession > >> of the RManonURI - short answer is 'no' - only the minter (client) > >> needs to know what the value is. > >> > >> thanks > >> -Doug > >> __________________________________________________ > >> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group > >> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com > >> > >> > >> > >> *Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>* > >> > >> 11/14/2006 11:34 AM > >> > >> > >> To > >> Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Marsh > >> <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" > >> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > >> cc > >> > >> Subject > >> RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> In the proposal we made for PR001 I don’t believe the below is an > >> issue. The expected setup for MakeConection is defined. > >> > >> I agree that if we close PR001 with no action that the current spec > >> will need to be changed to address this problem. > >> > >> > >> *From:* Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com] * > >> Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 9:46 AM* > >> To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org* > >> Subject:* [ws-rx] New issue: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear > >> > >> MakeConnection as defined today relies on the RM Anonymous URI > >> template. The spec does not adequately specify the preconditions > >> necessary for the exchange to be successful. > >> > >> Prior to a MakeConnection message, do both the client and the server > >> have to be in possession of a correctly constructed instance of the > >> RM anon URI template? Of an EPR using this template? The example > >> messages invent a subscription operation in step 1, which indicates > >> that the precise URI and the intent to enable MakeConnection must be > >> negotiated between the RMD and RMS out of band, yet nowhere are these > >> preconditions enumerated. The RM protocol preconditions only list an > >> EPR as a precondition, not the precise form of that EPR, and any > >> intention that buffering of messages should be engaged. What happens > >> if a client does a MakeConnection without all preconditions being > >> satisfied also appears to be underspecified. > >> > >> *Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> - > >> _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_ > >> <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/> > >> > > > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > paul@wso2.com > (646) 290 8050 > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com (646) 290 8050 "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]