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

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Doug Bunting wrote:

> 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 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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.

I think the http binding example in the figures is for one-way.  We 
could put in another example for request-response, or just clarify that 
the restriction stated is for One-way, which is what I did.

We have discussed many times (with the old normative table in section 5 
) the support of callback and poll with request-response, and every time 
we agreed to keep the allowed behaviour.

>
> 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 RMP will only send the original request as request-response if it 
has been defined that way in the wsdl.  The essential point of the 
protocol is that the rm-reply goes on a separate callback request.  The 
response to the original http request depends on the WSDL definition for 
the operation.

>
>> 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
>
We need to discuss this at the meeting.

Tom Rutt

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