[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
"Jonathan Marsh"
<jonathan@wso2.com>
11/25/2006 10:40 AM |
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
11/24/2006 06:31 PM |
|
"Jonathan Marsh"
<jonathan@wso2.com>
11/24/2006 12:16 PM |
|
Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
11/15/2006 03:02 AM |
|
Gil
I also share your unease. I also am uneasy about saying that MC is
always on. There is a different security model implicit in supporting
MC. I don't want some random person polling for messages and reading
them. Therefore I believe that the server ought to be able to clearly
know if a client is going to use MC or not, and potentially refuse an
offer or not send a CS based on that. I still think that your last case
is a pretty clear indication but as the spec doesn't state this I think
we have a problem.
Paul
Gilbert Pilz wrote:
> Paul,
>
> Here's a CreateSequence with a non-Anon AcksTo and an Anon Offer/Endpoint.
>
> <wsrm:CreateSequence>
> <wsrm:AcksTo>
>
> <wsa:Address>http://192.168.0.102:9090/axis/services/RMService</wsa:Address>
> </wsrm:AcksTo>
> <wsrm:Offer>
>
> <wsrm:Identifier>uuid:2901b650-5952-11db-b92b-881536e8c557</wsrm:Identifier>
> <wsrm:Endpoint>
>
> <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</wsa:Address>
> <wsrm:Endpoint>
> </wsrm:Offer>
> </wsrm:CreateSequence>
>
> If I'm an RMD and I receive one of these (and I accept the Offer)
should I
> assume that MC(SequenceID) is going to be used? I would think so,
but the
> spec doesn't say one way or another.
>
> Here's a CreateSequence with an Anon AcksTo and a non-Anon Offer/Endpoint.
>
> <wsrm:CreateSequence>
> <wsrm:AcksTo>
>
> <wsa:Address>http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/anonymous</wsa:Address>
> </wsrm:AcksTo>
> <wsrm:Offer>
>
> <wsrm:Identifier>uuid:2901b650-5952-11db-b92b-881536e8c557</wsrm:Identifier>
> <wsrm:Endpoint>
>
> <wsa:Address>http://192.168.0.102:9090/axis/services/RMService</wsa:Address>
> <wsrm:Endpoint>
> </wsrm:Offer>
> </wsrm:CreateSequence>
>
> Sould an RMD assume that MC(SequenceID) is going to be used? I would
think
> not, since you should be able to piggy-back Acks on the HTTP response
> channel but, again, the spec isn't clear.
>
> Here's a CreateSequence with both an Anon AcksTo and an Anon Offer/Endpoint
>
> (... you get the point ...)
>
> It seems pretty clear that, if an RMD gets one of these (and accepts
the
> Offer), that MC(SequenceID) will need to be used but . . .
>
> In any case I'm pretty uncomfortable with the idea of deriving the
RMS and
> RMD's expected behavior from the combination of values of various
elements
> of the CreateSequence element. Even the MakeConnection(RM-Anon) rule
of "if
> you see a .../ws-rx/wsrm/200608/anonymous?id={uuid} as the value of
any
> wsa:Address element in CS you should expect that MC will be used"
makes me a
> little uneasy.
>
> - gp
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
>> Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:27 AM
>> To: Paul Fremantle
>> Cc: Doug Davis; Marc Goodner; Jonathan Marsh;
>> 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]