+1
I thought about proposing this too. The
new Close operation subsumes almost completely the LastMessage marker -
the
added value is not worth the added protocol
complexity.
-Jacques
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005
7:30 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Remove
LastMessage
Title:Remove LastMessage
Description:
The
LastMessage element, as part of a Sequence header element, appears superfluous.
It seems to serve 2 purposes:
1
- force a SeqAck to be sent back from the RMD
2
- force the RMD to reject any messages with a higher message #
#1
can be done with an AckReq header. We should avoid having multiple ways
to do the same thing.
#2
is really only an issue if someone tries to hijack the sequence - and to
protect against that we should be using a real security mechanism like
WS-SC/Trust, not the LastMessage element.
When
an RMS is done with a sequence it is free to simply Close or Terminate it
(whether or not it has all of the Acks it wants - but normally it will wait) -
having an additional message exchange to send a LastMessage is unnecessary.
Justification:
See above.
Target:
core
Proposal:
Remove all references to LastMessage (and related Fault) from the
spec [1]. See attached diff/pdf file for the specific changes.
[1]
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/15001/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-05.pdf
Note
the protocol flow/example picture was updated too.