[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009
Right! But we need to work out which policy assertions go with which messages. I'm not sure that the proposed assertion shd be a child element of the existing RM assertion as I think they belong in different messages. But this is work we need to do. All the best, Ashok > -----Original Message----- > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, September 15, 2005 6:12 AM > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009 > > Ashok, > > I haven't suggested an association with a message at all. My > proposal just augments the RMssertion with a child element: > <wsrm:DeliveryAssurance/>. The current RM Policy Assertion > spec defines scope of the assertion to have Endpoint Policy > Subject as per WS-Policy Attachments. > > Cheers, > > 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 > > Ashok Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com> wrote on > 09/15/2005 08:59:52 > AM: > > > Chris: > > As with issue i024, we need to determine the messages to which this > > new assertion applies. It seems from your discussion that > it applies > > only to the CreateSequenceResponse. Does this makes sense or are > > there other usecases? > > > > All the best, Ashok > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2005 9:40 AM > > > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: [ws-rx] discussion of issue i009 > > > > > > All, > > > > > > This email is intended to start a discussion on issue i009 [1]. > > > > > > The issue has to do with providing the RMD with the capacity to > > > advertise its DA QoS. It is somewhat related to issue > i024, raised > > > by Ashok. However, I don't believe that the resolutions > need to be > > > tied to one another. > > > > > > Basically, there is currently no specified means of > declaring the DA > > > applied at a given RMD endpoint. It has been suggested > that the RMS > > > (or AS) might have a vested interest in knowing, a priori to > > > establishing a Sequence with an RMD what DA would be applied. For > > > instance, it may require that the messages be processed > InOrder. If > > > the RMD were not enforcing InOrder DA at the RMD, then the source > > > endpoint might choose not to engage with that endpoint. > > > > > > I would propose that one way to resolve this would be to > define RM > > > policy assertions that specify the DA. > > > e.g. a psuedo-schema for this would be as follows: > > > > > > <wsrm:RMAssertion> > > > <wsrm:DeliveryAssertion > mode="[AtLeastOnce|AtMostOnce|ExactlyOnce]" > > > ordered="[xs:boolean]"? ... > > > > ... > > > </wsrm:DeliveryAssertion>? > > > ... > > > </wsrm:RMAssertion> > > > > > > Thus, an endpoint could declare its DA QoS in the policy > statement > > > associated with the endpoint. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > [1] > > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.ph > > > p/14329/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i009 > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]