OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsrm message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsrm] Contribution taking away one-way restriction on Callbackand Poll


Tom,

On 15-Aug-04 09:39, Tom Rutt wrote:
> Due to the issue raised by Jacques in his email, I did not initiate the 
> Kavi CD ballot on draft 1.85
> 
> To facillitate discussion and, possibly, voting on a CD at our next 
> Teleconference, I just posted a contribution which removes the 
> restriction (and fixes a typo)
> 
> Based on Jacques email, I produced a version which takes away the
> restriction of using call back and poll with only one-way mep.  I also 
> corrected a typo.  I just posted the revision as contribution:
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8706/WS-Reliability-1085ter.sxw 
> 
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8707/WS-Reliability-1085ter.pdf 
> 
> 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8708/WS-Reliability-1085ter-diff.pdf 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Requirement R3.7 states:
> 
> *R3.7 *The Specification must support the Polling RM-Reply Pattern for 
> WSDL 1.1 Request-Reply
> 
> operations.
> 
> 
> 
> While there is no corresponding requirement for Callback Reply pattern, 
> it was allowed in all prior CDs we have voted on.  Since the protocol 
> will work with callback reply pattern with request-reply operations, 
> there is no reason for the restriction at this late time in the 
> progression of this specification.
> 
> 
> 
> The restrictions pointed out by Jacques, in section 6, have been there 
> since CD .992 and earlier, however they are pertinent only for the 
> one-way example, as shown in the figures.  These had to be clarified as 
> pertaining to one-way.

With the restrictions in Section 6 in place, we had two possible ways 
forward: (1) support those restrictions with general constraints earlier in 
the document, as I did and as the group apparently supported me in doing; 
or (2) write a new HTTP Binding that (somehow) provides an indication to 
the SOAP processor about whether or not it should expect a SOAP Envelope in 
the underlying response for every SOAP message initiated in what *might be* 
a request-response situation.  You have chosen a version of route (2) but 
have only relaxed the restrictions without providing any information to 
fill the gaps now open.

The restrictions in Section 6 have existed since that section was first 
written, long before .992.  They have never before been constrained to only 
the one-way model.  You are creating a new protocol and have not filled in 
the gaps in that protocol when an RMP (seemingly at its whim) makes use of 
an underlying request-response binding.  If we are going to support any 
underlying protocol and any binding, we need to describe what the Sending 
RMP (or, for the asynchronous poll and callback patterns, the Receiving 
RMP) can expect to be returned.  I know of no way to even describe to a 
standard SOAP processor a situation in which a SOAP message may or may not 
result in a SOAP Envelope in the underlying response.

> The following changes were made, against draft 1.085 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/8689/WS-Reliability-2004-08-12.pdf 
> , to take away restrictions on use of callback and poll only with 
> one-way mep.
> 
> 
> 
> Page: 11
> 
> Sequence number: 1
> 
> Type: Typographic error
> 
> line 336 - "between between"

Thanks for catching this.

...

thanx,
	doug


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]