RE: [ws-rx] Proposed new issue: spec talks about delivery assurances but does not clearly relate them to the protocol

I think the proposal (primarily a> and b> below) 
makes sense. It addresses one of my concerns that describing DA in two places 
and maintaining consistency between them will be an ongoing headache for 
all of us. I would however suggest not to entirely remove references 
to DA in the WS-RM spec. IMHO, it is a common expectation that a reliable 
messaging specification *talks* about DA (normatively or otherwise). We 
could leave some text in the WS-RM spec that describes the general concept 
of DA and also makes it clear that the RM protocol remains unchanged no matter 
what DA is used between the RM and the App layers.

 

I don't see a critical need for c>, especially since we 
have agreed that the protocol does not vary based on the DA in 
use.

 

Thanks,

Sanjay

 

  

  
  From: Stefan Batres 
  [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, Sep 26, 2005 10:04 
  AM
To: 
Subject: [ws-rx] 
  Proposed new issue: spec talks about delivery assurances but does not clearly 
  relate them to the protocol

  

  

  
Description:

  
The WS-ReliableMessaging 
  specification talks about delivery assurances but does not clearly relate them 
  to the protocol.

  
 

  
Justification:

  
This vague definition of the 
  relationship between delivery assurances and the protocol has caused (extreme) 
  confusion and does not clearly describe how the protocol is intended to be 
  used.

  
 

  
Proposals:

  
One proposal that has been 
  kicked around by the TC consists of:

  
a)     
  Remove all references to 
  delivery assurances from the WS-RM spec. 

  
b)     
  Describe, in detail, DA’s in the 
  policy spec (since we’re adding an Assurances element to that document 
  anyway).

  
c)      
  Create a new deliverable for the 
  TC; a profiles document. The profiles would describe how the protocol should 
  be used to implement the various delivery 
  assurances.

  
Other variants on this have been 
  proposed as well. The point is to make it more obvious that DA’s are a 
  contract between RMS/RMD and apps whereas the protocol is about guaranteed 
  transfer between RMS and RMD and enables the implementation of DA’s 
  between RMS/RMD and apps.

  
 

  
Comments?

  
 

  
--Stefan