RE: [wsn] Potential issue on WS-BaseNotif

["Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com>]

Title: Message

Since there doesn't seem to be any disagreement that this is worth at least clarifying, can you add an issue for this Sanjay? One question is whether we just need to clarify the text or we also want to create special faults for this.

 

Thanks,

 

William

-----Original Message-----
From: David Hull [mailto:dmh@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2004 7:32 PM
Cc: wsn@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsn] Potential issue on WS-BaseNotif

Steve Graham wrote:

I agree the wording could be improved to state that the production of an EPR to a subscription is the result of successful processing of the subscribe request.

+1

++++++++
Steve Graham
(919)254-0615 (T/L 444)
STSM, On Demand Architecture
Member, IBM Academy of Technology
<Soli Deo Gloria/>
++++++++

"Vambenepe, William N" <vbp@hp.com> 06/10/2004 05:53 PM

To:        <wsn@lists.oasis-open.org>         cc:                 Subject:        [wsn] Potential issue on WS-BaseNotif

Hi all,

Alan Weissberger pointed a potential issue in WS-BaseNotification:

Section 4.2 says: "As part of the processing of a Subscribe request
message, the NotificationProducer MUST create a Subscription resource
representing the Subscription. It returns an EndpointReference in the
response to the Subscribe request."

This does not leave the option to refuse to create this subscription, if
for example the NotificationProducer does not support the topic
requested, or the subscriber does not have adequate permissions or the
NotificationProducer has reached max capacity or any other reason.

The suggestion is to soften the wording to allow this and to define
fault message(s) to express this.

Any comment or opposition to adding this as an issue?

Regards,

William