Fw: [ws-tx] Issue 030 - consolidated refinement of Proposal 2

[Ian Robinson <ian_robinson@uk.ibm.com>]

There has been a lot of discussion and some good comments suggesting
refinement of "Proposal 2" for issue 30. Specifically:
   Alastair's point that the WS-C spec defines the Coodination faults as
   "reply messages" but the WS-AT spec defines AT faults as "notification
   messages". The refined proposal clarifies that the specific messages
   exchange patterns apply to the protocol rather than to individual
   messages and that protocol fault messages are constructed according to
   the rules of the protocol in which they are used.
   Bob's objection to the use of phrases like ' "one way" pattern as
   defined in WS-Addressing '. The proposal replaces this with ' The
   protocols defined in WS-AtomicTransaction use a "one way" message
   exchange pattern consisting of a sequence of notification messages
   between a Coordinator and a Participant. '
   Joe's observation of the inconsistency in specificity between references
   to WS-A from Coordination on the one hand and AT on the other. These are
   now uniformly precise. Also the proposed text now refer to the abstract
   message addressing properties rather than to soap header elements.

Max and I have updated our proposal to address these concerns.

(See attached file: Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc)(See attached file:
Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc)(See attached file:
Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc)

In accrodance with the decision of the TC on the last telecon, the text
remains silent on the handling of non-TX fault messages.

We have been discussing this issue for a month now, and we have other work
queued up. Could I suggest that any further refinements or
counter-proposals be written in terms of concrete spec language that the TC
would be able to vote upon on the next telecon.


Regards,
Ian

Issue30_Proposal_2_WSBA.doc

Issue30_Proposal_2_WSAT_updated.doc

Issue30_Proposal_WSCOOR_updated.doc