Re: [wsrm] Comments on proposed resolutions for Deployment Template Issues T1 and T2

["iwasa" <kiwasa@jp.fujitsu.com>]

Tom,

Thank you for your updates.
Let me clarify your proposals to make sure how these should be
described in the issue list.
Are the followings correct statement for your proposed resolution?


Proposed resolution for Issue T1:
Delete the entire row for profile item (b) in section 4.1.1 and its columns.
Add the following statement to the right column of Notes in section 4.1.1:

"
You may describe if there is any other requirement (e.g., Number
of retries, Interval between retries, and others). Describe any mechanisms
whereby the user of the deployed implementation may exercise control
of resending behavior.
"

* I just want to make sure whether you want the first sentence above or not.
--

Proposed resolution for Issue T2:
Change the second column of profile item b) row in Section 4.1.3 from:
"
What is the behavior of a receiving RMP when a duplicate request is
received, for which a response had already been previously sent?  (is a
Fault be sent back? Or a duplicate of the cached response?)
RECOMMENDED / REQUIRED
"
to
"
Which of the following statements describes the behavior of the
 implementation of a receiving RMP when a duplicate request message,
 which requires a response, is received:
1) an application fault is always sent as response to the duplicate message
2) a limited cache of sent responses is used to allow resend of the
 prior response, when this cache is exhausted, an application fault is
 sent in response to duplicate message
3) all sent responses are cached until the expiry time for the original
 request message
4) other - please describe an alternative behavior regarding the
 response sent after receipt of duplicate response
"
--

Thanks,

Iwasa


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Rutt" <tom@coastin.com>
To: <tom@coastin.com>
Cc: "wsrm" <wsrm@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 6:18 AM
Subject: [wsrm] Comments on proposed resolutions for Deployment Template
Issues T1 and T2


> I Talked to Jacques (who is away from reliable Internet access while on
> Vacation in France) regarding the issues for the deployment template
> candidate CD draft.
>
> Jacques stated that the Deployment template is not just for resolving
> interop concerns, but can be also
> used for a deployment to document any decisions it has made regarding
> stated options in the spec.
>
> This information may be considered useful to a prospective user of a
> deployed implementation of the standard.
>
> The answers may affect how the deployment may be used at run time, give
> the decisions the deployers have made regarding options.
>
> Regarding Issue T1:
> The entire row should be deleted (both collumns of profile item b)
>
> It might be better for the second column of the notes line to state the
> following:
> "
> Describe any mechanisms whereby the user of the deployed implementation
may
> exercise control of resending behaviour.
> "
>
> Regarding Issue T2 -
>
> A user of a deployed implementation may want to know what the behaviour
> is upon receiving a duplicate request.
>
> This may be useful for deciding if reliability of the response can be
> attained by the actions of the request sender.
>
> Change the second column of profile item b) row from:
>
> "
> What is the behavior of a receiving RMP when a duplicate request is
> received, for which a response had already been previously sent?  (is a
> Fault be sent back? Or a duplicate of the cached response?)
> RECOMMENDED / REQUIRED
> "
>
> Which of the following statements decribes the behaviour of the
> implementation of a receiving RMP when a duplicate request message,
> which requires a response, is received:
> 1) an application fault is alwayse sent as response to the duplicate
message
> 2) a limited cache of sent responses is used to allow resend of the
> prior response, when this cache is exhausted, an application fault is
> sent in response to duplicate message
> 3) all sent responses are cached until the expiry time for the original
> request message
> 4) other - please describe an alternative behaviour regarding the
> response sent after receipt of duplicate response
> "
>
>
>
> Tom Rutt wrote:
> > Iwasa posted an issues list at:
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/23358/IssueListForProfiles0.1.pdf
> >
> >
> > The base Template Candidate CD refered to in the "T" issues in the
> > list is:
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/23391/CandidateDeploymentTemplateCD-040207.pdf
> >
> >
> >
> > The base Proposed CD for Information appliance profile, referred to in
> > the "P" issues in the list is:
> >
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/download.php/23275/wsr-profile-ias02.pdf
> >
> >
> > Please provide comments on the proposed resolutions Iwasa has provided
> > in the Issues list for these two documents before the end
> > of this week.
> >
> > Tom Rutt
> >
>
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133
>
>