ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement protocol response forAcksTo = wsa:anonymous
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: Marc Goodner <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 20:23:29 -0500
Sounds about right. Didn't we
go round several times to get the text right that indicated the acks would
flow on the http response flow (when acksTo == anon) if the request had
a Seq or AckReq header referencing the SeqID in question?
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 08:14 PM
|
To
| "ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org"
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [ws-rx] PR Issue 13 SequenceAcknowledgement
protocol response for AcksTo = wsa:anonymous |
|
PR Issue 13, http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/issues/pr/Issues.xml#i013
, asks if an ack needs to be mapped to the original HTTP Response for the
message. It also suggests that maybe wsaAnonymous is not an allowed value
for acksTo and if so should be explicitly forbidden.
I do not believe wsa:Anonymous should
be barred from use in acksTo. I think the spec is pretty clear that the
only barred value is wsa:None.
I don’t think we can address the mapping
of an ack in this case to the HTTP layer as the underlying binding is out
of our scope. In this case I think the specification already allows flexibility
to send an ack on the HTTP response for the original request, or on a subsequent
request including using AckRequested.
If everyone else agrees I suggest we
provide that feedback and close this issue with no action.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]