Issue 021 - WS-C: Split out 007 d) -- Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration

["Peter Furniss" <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This is hereby identified as ws-tx issue 019.

Please follow up to this message or otherwise ensure your subject line
starts "Issue 019 - " 
  (after any Re:, [ws-tx] etc)

Alastair pointed out his original message referred to 007 when it should
have said 002. I have corrected the misreferences below.

==============================================

Issue name -- WS-C: Split out 002 d) -- Avoid normative statements on 
timing of sub-coordinator registration

Target document and draft:

Protocol:  Coord

Artifact:  spec

Draft:

Coord spec working draft uploaded 2005-12-02

Link to the document referenced:

http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/download.php/15738/WS-Coordination-
2005-11-22.pdf

Section and PDF line number:

Section 3 "Coordination Service", ll. 181-209


Issue type:

Design / editorial


Related issues:

002, 018, 019, 020


Issue Description:

This issue separates out sub-issue d) of Issue 002, which can be found
here:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-tx/email/archives/200512
/msg00059.html

Avoid normative statements on timing of sub-coordinator registration.


Issue Details:

[This issue stems from Choreology Contribution issue TX-17.]

The initial part of Section 3 (up to and inluding the diagram, Figure 
2., on p. 10) uses an example to convey three things:

    a) the basic interactions of a registering application service and a

Registration Service, and their
    relationship to Coordinators and Participants
    
    b) the notion of an interposed Coordinator, and
    
    c) some seemingly normative rules relating to how interposed 
coordination works.
 
On the last point: There are two statements, which are too restrictive 
-- or perhaps which seem too
restrictive because they are actually intended only as examples of one 
possible use of the protocol, but
appear to have normative weight because there are no other statements at

all in the specification about the
behaviours being discussed.

The second of these statements is contained within the following 
call-out which refers to the diagram. The statement is flagged with the 
inserted tag [Statement 2].

ll. 204-206

    "5. [Statement 2] This registration causes CoordinatorB to forward 
the registration onto CoordinatorA's
    Registration service RSa, exchanging Endpoint References for Yb and 
the protocol service Ya. This forms a
    logical connection between these Endpoint References that the 
protocol Y can use."

The practice of having a subcoordinator delay registration with its 
nominated superior coordinator until it
first receives registration(s) from Participant(s) is viable, given 
certain rules. So is the practice of
eagerly registering subcoordinators as they are created. The lazy/eager 
choice is not the property of WS-
Coordination, and the spec should make it clear that subcoordinator 
registration time is not defined.


Proposed Resolution:

Remove any normative statement relating to the timing of sub-coordinator

registration, other than to state
that the sub-coordinator must be registered to take part in activity 
completion.