RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i021

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

"Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com> wrote
on 12/14/2006 06:38:33 PM:

> I've been reviewing the message that accompanied this issue and I'd
> like to update/revise my position on the points I made:
>  
> 1.) Complicates SOAP processing: I think the
proposal on the table 
> for PR018 basically eliminates this concern.

ok
 
> 2.) Agreement on use of piggy-backing: I'm still
somewhat concerned 
> about this aspect. I think the spec should make it clear that the
> "MAY" in piggy-backing applies to the piggy-backer; it's
sender-
> optional. RMS and RMD implementations MUST be prepared to handle 
> piggy-backed SequenceAcknowledgement and AckRequested (respectively)
headers.

+1
  
> 3.) EPR comparison: I still think this is a real
concern. We are 
> talking about comparing EPRs, something the WS-Addr group decided
> was too hairy to get into. Waving our hands and saying that 
> reference parameters must be "considered" doesn't cut it.
We should 
> profile a small subset of the options for EPR comparison and say 
> "this is how you compare EPRs for the purposes of selecting a
SOAP 
> message on which to piggy-back". We can afford to be a little
> conservative because a false negative comparison (thinking two EPRs
> are "different" when they are really "the same")
isn't all that harmful.

Got any proposed text?
-Doug

  
> - gp
> 
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2006 1:05 PM
> To: Patil, Sanjay
> Cc: Paul Fremantle; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i021

> 
> Been a while but I think I'm saying we should close w/no action.  
> AcksTo EPR MUST have an RM agent or it should be tagged as the AcksTo
EPR. 
> As for the piggy-backing issue - I can agree that perhaps the text
> around piggy-backing should be tigher but in general I think we 
> should keep the idea of piggy-backing.
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> __________________________________________________
> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
> 
> 

> 
> "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com> 
> 12/14/2006 02:11 PM 
> 
> To
> 
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>

> 
> cc
> 
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> 
> 
> Subject
> 
> RE: [ws-rx] Proposal for i021
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   
> Doug, 
>   
> Are you proposing that we do not need to add any restrictions since
> AcksTo EPR is expected to point to an RM agent? 
>   
> Also, how would you propose to deal with the problems related to 
> piggybacking (cited by Gil in raising the issue 21) in the context
> of AckRequested header block? 
>   
> -- Sanjay 
> From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, Nov 30, 2006 12:40 PM
> To: Paul Fremantle
> Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposal for i021
> 
> 
> Still thinking about this one but my initial thought is that the 
> AcksTo EPR is specifically called the "AcksTo" EPR for a
reason - 
> there must be an RM processor there to handle Acks.  So, I'm
not 
> really sure any restrictions are needed - this goes to your first
paragraph. 
> 
> To your specific text - your first bullet would prevent us from 
> optimizing things and putting Acks for lots of sequences onto the
> same message. 
> You're 2nd bullet (I think) is related to this in that it seems to
> acknowledge that we may want to put multiple acks for multiple 
> sequences into the message and we're just concerned with knowing 
> that some RM processor is at the EPR - well, then we're back to my
> first point - if there wasn't an RM processor there then the AcksTo
> EPR is bad.
> 
> 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> 
> 11/30/2006 02:34 PM 
> 
> To
> 
> "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>

> 
> cc
> 
> Subject
> 
> [ws-rx] Proposal for i021
> 
> 

> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The high-level view is that it would be nice to restrict the 
> piggybacking of acks to situations where we are sure that there is
an RM 
> agent at the other end.
> 
> Replace the beginning of section 3.9 with the following:
> 
> The RM Destination informs the RM Source of successful message receipt
> using a
> SequenceAcknowledgement header block. The RM Destination MAY Transmit
the
> SequenceAcknowledgement header block independently or it MAY include
the
> SequenceAcknowledgement header block on existing messages targeted
to 
> the AcksTo EPR.
> 
> When the SequenceAcknowledgement header block is included on existing
> messages, this is known as piggybacking. Piggybacking MAY occur in
two 
> cases:
> 
>  * The first case is where the SequenceAcknowledgement header
block
>    is piggybacked onto a reply to a Sequence Traffic Message.
In this
>    case the SequenceAcknowledgement must apply to the same
Sequence
>    as the SequenceTrafficMessage. The definition of reply
used is
>    that defined by the WS-Addressing relationship URI
>    "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/reply".
>  * The second case is where the existing message is a Sequence
>    Traffic Message. In this case the Sequence of the Sequence
Traffic
>    Message does not need to be the same as the Sequence
of the
>    SequenceAcknowledgement header block.
> 
> Piggybacking MUST not occur unless one or both of these cases apply.
> 
> Paul
> 
> -- 
> 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
> 
>