ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Proposal to resolve Issue 006
- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:25:32 -0400
+1
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
wrote on 10/12/2005 03:06:41 PM:
> +1 that there is no need for this capability.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 2:29 PM
> To: wsrx
> Subject: [ws-rx] Proposal to resolve Issue 006
>
> Description
>
> Is there a
requirement that the sender can assert that
> the receiver must
> deliver a
particular reliability assurance on a given
> sequence?
>
> Discussion
>
> It has been agreed that the protocol is the same on any ws -rm Sequence,
>
> regardless of DA level agreements in place between RMD and Destination
> Application. There is no need to have a standard protocol
mechanism
> for the RMS to signal DA requirments on the sequence for the RMD.
>
> If reliaiblity policy is attached to a destination endpoint at a finer
> level of granularity than endpoint subject level, an implementaton
> (extension beyond normal conformance) would have to use means outside
> the scope of this standard to convey such requirements (e.g., RMD
could
> be aware of the wsdl description).
>
> Proposed resolution to Issue 006:
>
> close issue with no changes to specfication.
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732
774 5133
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]