Re: [ws-rx] Proposals for MakeConnection issues summary

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Marc,
  for issues 28-31, aside from
the possibility of an MCsupported policy assertion, I believe those issues
should be closed w/no action - hence no proposal has been made.  However,
for your new issue on WSA Dependency (or perhaps this is pr001) I think
its only fair to include an issue I raised in my long note to you [1] which
has still been unanswered and that's the composibility issue of your proposal
with WS-Addressing.  In particular how it seems to violate the definition
of what anonymous means.  Anonymous is very clearly defined to mean
the backchannel of the same connection that carried the request.  I
think this needs to be addressed.

Also, in order to help move the discussions
along I think it would be useful if you could reexamine my note [1] and
more clearly spell out how some of the various scenarios are supposed to
work.  There were a few places where I asked if you could provide
some sample message flows to help explain how things would look.  I
was hoping we'd get to those parts of the note on this week's call and
I think it would move things along much faster if you had those sample
message exchanges available for the group to review before the call.

[1] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200611/msg00011.html

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 09:57 PM

To	"ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	[ws-rx] Proposals for MakeConnection issues summary

There has been such a flurry of mails
on MakeConnection today (apologies) I thought I try to provide a summary
from my point of view. Below I’ve listed the issues related to MakeConnection,
how each of the options on the straw poll relates (except the withdrawn
proposal 1) and any relevant notes. In particular I’m calling out where
each side agrees that something further needs to be done. 
 
I apologize that there seem to be two
new issues in the table below. I view them more as open questions that
may or may not have issues behind their answers. I am calling these out
as proposal 2 does not have any open questions related to those points.
The open questions are only in relation to the current spec.

Issue	Close No Action	Proposal 2	Notes
1	Solved	Solved
15	Open	Open	Both sides seem to agree that an assertion for MakeConnection is an idea worth exploring. No proposals on the table yet.
27	Open	Open	Both sides seem to doubt there is an issue here. This might be close with no action either way. If it isn’t there may only be clarifying text required.
28	Open	Closed	No proposal if 1 is closed with no action
29	Open	Closed	No proposal if 1 is closed with no action
30	Open	Closed	No proposal if 1 is closed with no action
31	Open	Closed	No proposal if 1 is closed with no action
WSA WG dependency*	Open	Closed	CR33 is still not closed. There is still a potential impact on the RM anon URI. Earlier actions taken in relation to CR33 certainly do not support the notion of other specs defining their own anonymous URIs any longer.   Proposal 2 does not have any WSA WG dependencies as it does not define its own special URI requiring support from that WG’s outputs.
Potential security composition issue**	Open	Closed	There has been an open question in the implementation subcommittee for a month on how to relate the proper token to a sequence created through the use of MakeConnection. There may not be an issue with the current spec, but there is the open question.   Proposal 2 has advice that a new security token should be issued for any new sequence created through MakeConnection so there isn’t an open question there.

 
References follow.
 
Regards,
Marc g
 
References:
Current straw poll ballot for what to do about MakeConnection:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/ballot.php?id=1147
 
*http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/addr/6/11/06-ws-addr-minutes.html
The WG decided here to issue an errata to strike the text in the WSA SOAP binding suggesting other specs define their own anonymous URIs.
 
** http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx-implement/200610/msg00010.html
The open thread on how to relate a security token to a sequence created through the use of MakeConnection.
 
Current MakeConnection issue threads (links are to beginning of thread):
1 – I’m not sure which one to point to for this, there’s a bunch. Nothing as fresh as today.
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i001
 
15 – no thread yet, the idea of an assertion has been discussed under some of the other issue threads.
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i015
 
27 - http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00125.html
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i027
 
28 - http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00120.html
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i028
 
29 - http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00123.html
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i029
 
30 - http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00122.html
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i030
 
31 - http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00121.html
Description: http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i031