RE: [ws-rx] Concrete proposal for PR035

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

I think the wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance definition from Marc is less convoluted and better. Although I don't think the previous definition was attempting to describe a wire contract between RMS/RMD, the problem with it is that it is mixing assertion definition with "consumption semantics"  (what the other party should do, when aware that this DA assertion is advertised by an endpoint).

 

Sure, each one of these DA assertions may engage the behaviors of both RMS and RMD, in which case both parties need to comply in order for the DA to work. That could be reminded in the section 2.3 on Assertion attachment. But I believe there is no need to *require* anything (even with a SHOULD) from a policy consumer here, given that the decision to cooperate or not on a DA could be driven by other factors, as long as it does not affect basic interoperability.

 

On attachment semantics: Maybe the meaning of InOrder when attached to message vs. endpoint, could be spelled out in 2.3. (assume it means all instances of this input message for this operation, will be ordered)

 

So I am in favor of the update below, with an 's' at the end of "...between the RM and application layer."

 

Jacques

---

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 9:41 AM
To: Peter Niblett; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Concrete proposal for PR035

Speaking just to the assertions you outlined I have some concerns and a counter-proposal that addresses them.

·         Policy operators, wsp:All, should not be in the assertion definition.

·         The nested policy expressions should be expanded in the main exemplar.

·         The DA is between the RMD/AD or the RMS/AS, it is not between the RMS/RMD. Sure, an RMS may be interested in what the DA between the RMD/AD is and chose one endpoint over another based on that. That is still doesn’t place the DA between the RMD and RMS.

·         It may have been a typo (hard to tell from a note in a PDF), but the DA should not be an OR with the security policy expressions. It should be optional on its own.

 

Here is what the text would look like for the assertions.

<wsrmp:RMAssertion [wsp:Optional="true"]? ... >

  <wsp:Policy>

    [ <wsrmp:SequenceSTR/> |

    <wsrmp:SequenceTransportSecurity/> | ] ?

    <wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance>

      <wsp:Policy>

      [ <wsrmp:ExactlyOnce/> |

        <wsrmp:AtLeastOnce/> |

        <wsrmp:AtMostOnce> ]

      <wsrmp:InOrder/> ?

      <wsp:Policy>

    </wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance> ?

</wsp:Policy>

...

</wsrmp:RMAssertion>

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance

This is an OPTIONAL expression related to the message delivery quality of service between the RM and application layer. When used by an RM Destination this expresses the delivery assurance in effect between itself and its corresponding application destination. Conversely when used by an RM Source this expresses the delivery assurance in effect between itself and its corresponding application source. In either case the delivery assurance does not affect the messages transmitted on the wire.  Absence of this nested policy assertion on a wsrmp:RMAssertion policy assertion simply means that the endpoint has chosen not to advertise its delivery assurance characteristics.

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance/wsp:Policy

This REQUIRED element identifies additional requirements for the use of the wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance.

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:ExactlyOnce

This expresses the ExactlyOnce Delivery Assurance defined in [WS-RM].

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:AtLeastOnce

This expresses the AtLeastOnce Delivery Assurance defined in [WS-RM].

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:AtMostOnce

This expresses the AtMostOnce Delivery Assurance defined in [WS-RM].

 

/wsrmp:RMAssertion/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:DeliveryAssurance/wsp:Policy/wsrmp:InOrder

This expresses the InOrder Delivery Assurance defined in [WS-RM].

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:28 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Concrete proposal for PR035

 

 

Here are my proposed changes to the WS-RM and WS-RMP specs, consolidating the various input and discussion we had on last week's call

 

(See attached file: wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-16-PR035.pdf)(See attached file:

wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-11-PR035.pdf)

 

All changes are in section 2 of each spec, and they are all additions. I have used Adobe Pop-up annotations to show the new material.

 

Peter Niblett

IBM Senior Technical Staff Member