ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: PR009 and PR020: outline of a proposal
- From: "Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
- To: <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 23:16:50 -0800
(treating PR009 and
PR020 together here, - ignoring slight differences)
After more
discussion with issues originators: they want mostly a couple of
things:
1.
Definitions for the reliability assurances mentioned in the
charter (At-least-once, At-most-once...) . These are informally defined
in the charter but these definitions really belong in the spec, using the
precise terminology introduce by the messaging model, and also referring to
protocol elements. For example, there are several mentions of " message
duplicate" , but no clear definition of this term (how is a message
identified ? with wsa:MessageId? or by sequence ID + sequence # ? the latter is
only alluded to in the 2.4 example)
Rationale: even if
the support and requirement for reliability assurances is out of scope,
product developers need to refer to common definitions when they decide to
implement these. Their implementation will affect the design of RMD product from
the start.
2. RM Policy
assertions that identify these reliability
assurances.
Rationale: for those
implementors who have decided to implement reliability assurances, the
users of their products need to be able to exchange agreements or capabilities
on these. For those service providers who require or support these assurances,
there needs to be an interoperable way to advertise them.
Note: clearly there
may be more reliablity assurances than the minimal set mentioned in the charter
- and in particular, there may be several flavors of ordered message delivery.
Also different flavors of what to do in case of failure. But a minimal set is
needed in a first phase.
So... sounds a
bit like "deja-vu" , but note that the above proposal does
NOT make any requirement on implementations, and does NOT impose that the
protocol vary with the delivery assurance. Only that a core set of
definitions and policy representations be present for those who choose to
implement them and to share them.
Regards,
Jacques
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]