Re: [wsrm] Ack message and Fault message

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Sunil Kunisetty wrote:

> Hi Iwasa,
>
>iwasa wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi Sunil,
>>
>>OK. It is the same with the original version of the spec(WS-R 1.0),
>>if we require MessageHeader element for Ack and Fault
>>message also.
>>
>>But I thought we do not require the MessageHeader
>>for Ack or Fault anymore. The reason I thought that were:
>>
>>1. Any of MessageHeader element don't have to be
>>    in Ack or Fault, since we do not have
>>    any of "from" and "to" for sender and receiver,
>>    and timestamp in the current spec.
>>
>>    
>>
>
> We need to have the MessageHeader for every RM {request|ack|fault}
> message as we need an unique ID to identify the msg. Also we need the
> ExpiryTime to manage the message persistence.
>  
>
Why do we need this unique ID, unless it itself is a reliable message 
with payload to be delivered reliably.  If it is just an ack or
a fault, why does it need a messageID?

>  
>
>>2. ReplyPattern must not be in Ack or Fault,
>>    but it is Mandatory element in the current spec.
>>
>>    
>>
>
> Yes, it is mandatory. See REL-99. The pattern value for
> Response (Ack or Fault) is the same as the Request.
> This is an  indication to the original Sender in which
> pattern it received the ack or fault.
>
>  
>
>>But I don't propose this change if TC consensus
>>is requiring the MessageHeader for Ack and Fault.
>>
>>    
>>
>
> I think we definitely need it.
>
>  
>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Iwasa
>>
>>    
>>
>>> Iwasa,
>>>
>>>iwasa wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>Additional information.
>>>>
>>>>Currently section 3.1 states:
>>>>"The MessageHeader element MUST be present for Reliable Message,
>>>>        
>>>>
>>PollRequest
>>    
>>
>>>>message, Acknowledgment message, or Fault message. The MessageHeader
>>>>        
>>>>
>>element
>>    
>>
>>>>includes basic information to be used for a reliable message. This
>>>>        
>>>>
>>element
>>    
>>
>>>>includes the following attributes and child elements:"
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> The above sentence is indeed correct. We ALWAYS need MessageHeader for
>>> every RM message be it a Request, Ack. Response or a Fault message.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>So Ack and Fault message MUST include
>>>>MessageHeader element, according to the current spec.
>>>>Is that what we want? I think we should remove
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> Yes, that's what we want. Why do you felt that this have to be removed?
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>"Acknowledgment message" and "Fault message"
>>>>from this sentence.
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>> -Sunil
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>>    
>>
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>  
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133