RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

I agree that some more text for MC+SeqID
and MSFT's variants of MC may be needed - but I think the RManonURI's text
is pretty clear since it doesn't tie itself to any particular EPR - it
says it can be used for any unreachable EPR where you may want to pull
for messages.  But to each their own reading. 

MSFT's proposal, as I've said in other
notes, doesn't address this at all unless you're assuming that MC will
be supported by all parties - which I think is a bad assumption for all
variants to make.

thanks
-Doug
__________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com

Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>

11/14/2006 12:33 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
cc	Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear

It certainly sounds like
for both RM anon URI and MC+SeqID that there are undocumented preconditions
in the spec that need to be addressed.
 
Again, I do not believe
our proposal has this problem. I think there are unstated requirements
from the current spec that are being projected onto our proposal. 
 
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2006 9:28 AM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: Jonathan Marsh; Marc Goodner; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
 

Interesting, because people can use CS+Offer+Anon AcksTo even when not
using MC.  Sounds like an interop issue to me.

thanks
-Doug
__________________________________________________
STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com

Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>

11/14/2006 12:22 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Marsh <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear

 

I believe that with MC(SequenceID) I think there is a clear
preconditiion, which is CS+Offer+Anonymous-Acks-To.

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Sorry, not true. MSFT's proposal does not address any preconditions
> since the ability to support MC should be known before the CS is sent,
> not after. Sending a MCRefued in response to a MC is too late in the
> game. No matter which version of MC lives on I think some policy
> assertion will be needed so the server-side can advertise that it will
> support MC, or not. I was assuming we could use this issue to add that.
>
> As for Jonathan's text about either side needing to be in possession
> of the RManonURI - short answer is 'no' - only the minter (client)
> needs to know what the value is.
>
> thanks
> -Doug
> __________________________________________________
> STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group
> (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com
>
>
>
> *Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>*
>
> 11/14/2006 11:34 AM
>
>                  
> To
>                  Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>, Jonathan Marsh
> <jonathan@wso2.com>, "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  RE: [ws-rx] Issue 28: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
>
>
>
>                  
>
>
>
>
>
> In the proposal we made for PR001 I don’t believe the below is an
> issue. The expected setup for MakeConection is defined.
>
> I agree that if we close PR001 with no action that the current spec
> will need to be changed to address this problem.
>
>
> *From:* Jonathan Marsh [mailto:jonathan@wso2.com] *
> Sent:* Monday, November 06, 2006 9:46 AM*
> To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org*
> Subject:* [ws-rx] New issue: MakeConnection preconditions are unclear
>
> MakeConnection as defined today relies on the RM Anonymous URI
> template. The spec does not adequately specify the preconditions
> necessary for the exchange to be successful.
>
> Prior to a MakeConnection message, do both the client and the server
> have to be in possession of a correctly constructed instance of the RM
> anon URI template? Of an EPR using this template? The example messages
> invent a subscription operation in step 1, which indicates that the
> precise URI and the intent to enable MakeConnection must be negotiated
> between the RMD and RMS out of band, yet nowhere are these
> preconditions enumerated. The RM protocol preconditions only list an
> EPR as a precondition, not the precise form of that EPR, and any
> intention that buffering of messages should be engaged. What happens
> if a client does a MakeConnection without all preconditions being
> satisfied also appears to be underspecified.
>
> *Jonathan Marsh* - _http://www.wso2.com_ <http://www.wso2.com/> -
> _http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com_
> <http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com/>
>

--
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com