RE: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal

Doug:

 

I
believe there is a way to achieve what you are trying to do without resorting
to extending the spec to handle multiple RMS or RMD, which I strongly advise against
(so many statements in WS-RM assume that sequences happen over a single RMD and
a single  RMS - departing from this would mean a tedious "model"
upgrade I believe.) 

 

I know
it may look like just a modeling game, but I'd rather :

- make
the definitions of RMS and RMD abstract enough so that they tolerate
distributed implementations,

Rather than:

-
introduce the concept of  a sequence spanning "multiple RMSs / RMDs".

After
all, if I understand your point at the f2f, you still expect these distributed
RMDs to behave virtually like a single one.

 

In order
to do this - and also to allow for spanning several endpoints, in the
sense of Service endpoints - we could relax the association RMD / endpoint. For
example, the core definitions could be:

 

Line
182: - RMS: An addressable SOAP processing entity able to execute all functions
associated with sending

reliable
messages, as specified in this document (as well as in WS-RM Policy). 

 

Line 183:
- RMD: An addressable SOAP processing entity able to execute all functions
associated with receiving

reliable
messages, as specified in this document (as well as in WS-RM Policy).. 

 

Line
80:  I would suggest simply: "It defines a
messaging protocol to identify, track, and manage the

reliable delivery of messages transmitted
between a source party and a

destination party." (avoiding to mention any number of parties)

 

There
also several places where "endpoint" is used abusively instead of
RMD or RMS.

In
Section 2: (L-147, L-150...) use the term "RMD" instead of just
"endpoint".

More
generally, endpoint should mean either service endpoint or client endpoint
(e.g. rename " AD endpoint",  "AS endpoint"),
which may have a different address than the RMD or RMS.

 

In
Section 3.2 and elsewhere, expressions like "RM Source
endpoint." should be reduced
to just "RM Source", given that an RMS or RMD might not be addressable
as the same endpoint as the Source or Destination.

 

Jacques

 

 

From: Doug Davis
[mailto:] 

Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005
6:46 AM

To: 

Subject: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal

 

(oops
- I meant to hit send a couple of days ago) 

I took an AI
to write up a formal proposal for issue 10: 

Issue 10, as
stated, deals with whether or not a single RM sequence can span multiple ports.
 Looking at this issue some more though I believe the broader issue is
really whether a single RM sequence can span multiple endpoints as well.
 Should the RM spec limit a single RM sequence to just a single RM Source
and RM Destination or should it leave it up to the implementation to decide?
 I believe it should leave it up to the various implementations.  If
an implmentation is smart enough to share RM state across multiple endpoints
then there is no reason why a single sequence could not be used to deliver
messages to all of them (and to be clear I do see multiple RMSs and RMDs being
an option).  So, with that mind I'd like to propose the following changes
to the specs: 

Using this
version of the RM spec: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14548/wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-03.pdf

Line 80:

 
      remove the word "exactly" in the 

 
    sentence "...delivery of messages between exactly two
parties,..." 

To the end
of line 439 add: 

 
      This specification makes no restriction of the plurality
of the 

 
    RM Source or RM Destination.  If implementations can support

 
    a single RM Sequence spanning multiple WSDL ports or even 

 
    multiple service endpoints then they are free to do so.
 However, 

 
    it is out of scope for this specification to define how this

 
    ability is communicated or achieved.