[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
The context of the optionality for wsa:To was to allow for those situations, such as a point to point hardwired connection, where the underlying transport had no need for a destination address or when such an address was meaningless. -bob -----Original Message----- From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 2:59 PM To: Doug Davis Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear I understand what you are saying reflects the WSA spec. What I'm not clear is what that would actually mean in real life? How does the RMS transmit a TerminateSequence message to an anonymous endpoint if not on the backchannel of a MakeConnection? Paul Doug Davis wrote: > > Since wsa:To is optional, defaults to WSA anon, there are obviously > some environments where message can still be delivered absent of some > real URI - the assumption that all of these uses implies that MC must > be used is not an assumption I'm willing to make. Nor am I willing to > accept the opposite - that CS/Offer/Endpoint != anon means that MC > will not be used at all. > > 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 01:32 PM > > > To > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > cc > ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > 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 > > > -- 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]