Title: RE: [wsrm] Summary of WS-Reliability 1.01* issues discussed over past week
Solution proposed for (2a) below:
(removing the sentence "However, an RMP is not required to distinguish WSDL
operation types.")
We can remove this sentence if:
(1) we tighten the RMP definition (terminology):
Keep defining RMP as a "SOAP Node" (as defined in SOAP 1.2) as we did, but
remove the unnecessary and possibly misinterpreted "or a subset or superset thereof".
The RMP is the entity that has all functions needed to transmit reliable SOAP messages,
from the Submit/Deliver/Respond/Notify operations layer down to the wire.
(I think Doug made a similar point)
(2) we replace this sentence with a statement independent from WSDL, and getting
at the core of why the sentence above needed be removed:
"When invoking Deliver operation on a payload, an RMP is required to know whether
a related Respond invocation is expected or not."
(I would not mind narrowing further this statement to make it conditional to the binding
of Deliver/Respond to an underlying request-response MEP)
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Bunting [mailto:]
Sent: Sunday, June 13, 2004 3:13 PM
To:
Subject: [wsrm] Summary of WS-Reliability 1.01* issues discussed over
past week
The following is intended to help get everyone caught up.
Most of this derives from the abstract model in our specification,
resulting in a number of contradictions between it and the rest of the
document, underscoring a few over-general restrictions or indicating some
under-specified concerns. While some of the issues below could be
considered editorial, the bulk are at least minor technical concerns.
When reading the following, it is very important to remember the
distinction between the capabilities the WS-Reliability protocol provides
to the producer and consumer and how that protocol maps to use of an
underlying protocol. Producer / consumer interactions occur using
WS-Reliability and WS-Reliability uses SOAP messaging (our underlying
protocol). The RMP always has complete control over the bits on the wire
though the producer and consumer may provide the bulk of the message
content in a "pass through" fashion.
The example "solutions" are provided primarily to make the issues clear.
While some of these approaches may resolve the issues, we must come to a
common understanding of the problems before working on solving them.
1) The existing descriptions of the callback and poll RM-Reply patterns
assume the underlying protocol supports request-response SOAP
interactions but do not explain what goes into the underlying response
of the separate message exchanges. In detail, the response and
synchronous RM-Reply patterns may be used only with an underlying
protocol that supports request-response (a less general restriction than
currently specified). For the callback and asynchronous poll RM-Reply
patterns, we are using only one-way messaging; though the underlying
protocol might support request-response, we should rely on the SOAP
binding to describe or profile how the underlying response is used (or
ignored). For example, we might clarify that these RM-Reply patterns
involve two separate one-way SOAP message exchanges (callback), three
separate one-way message exchanges (asynchronous poll) or a one-way
followed by a request-response exchange (synchronous poll). Such a
clarification might also address part of (2) below -- though at the cost
of some generality.
1a) The "non-essential assumption" that the underlying protocol supports
request-response SOAP interactions, stated in section 2.1, should be
removed. This is no longer a general assumption but something specific
to two of our four RM-Reply pattern options.
1b) The HTTP Binding should be an instance of the general semantics
described in the main body of the specification and not extend those
semantics. The current section provides examples of semantics not
described elsewhere. After resolving the areas left under-specified or
over-generalized in the rest of the document, we must recheck section 6
for conflicts with these semantics. In addition, any transfer protocol
responses that may be unclear because we are using a request-response
underlying protocol in a one-way fashion should be described by
reference to the appropriate SOAP over HTTP binding.
2) Section 5.2 is completely about the producer / consumer interactions
though some of its text has been applied to the RMP use of an underlying
protocol. The matrix in section 5.2 states that all RM-Reply patterns
may be used with consumer-generated payload(s) or application responses
on the receiving RMP side. However, the callback and poll RM-Reply
patterns provide multiple opportunities to return payload information
(as they are currently described, see (1) above) and the specification
does not describe which option is recommended. Our new Respond
operation (possibly restricted to specific RM-Reply pattern choices)
must be mapped to the underlying protocol at least as far as timing is
concerned. We may also decide to further restrict when the consumer may
invoke the Respond operation.
2a) The sentence "However, an RMP is not requried to disinguish WSDL
operation types." [please note new spelling errors] was introduced in
a recent edit to section 5.2, enshrining an assumption a few of the TC
had previously made. This assumption contradicts the complete control
an RMP has over the bits on the wire. The consumer may or may not
provide payload information (the consumer interface may be described
using either a request-response or a one-way operation type). Even if
the receiving RMP is only passing the information through, it must be
aware of when to wait for the consumer to invoke the Respond operation.
This sentence should be removed.
2b) The one-way consumer interface and Response RM-Reply pattern is the
most direct combination to reliably deliver one-way messages from a
producer "hidden" behind a firewall. The matrix in section 5.2 should
not disallow this combination. While synchronous polling at least
works, it always requires an additional round trip.
2c) The matrix in section 5.2 also was the first to introduce the idea that
the consumer could provide information intended for the producer. We
needed to extend the abstract model to introduce this earlier and avoid
a contradiction between the matrix and the model. I believe this issue
has become editorial as we discuss the details of the edits necessary.
2d) When using the Response RM-Reply pattern, the immediate underlying
response may be lost and the sending RMP may query using a Poll
request. Should the response to such a "spontaneous" Poll indicate
which referenced messages included consumer payloads in the earlier
response? The sending RMP might "just know" a consumer payload may be
available from information the consumer provides (WSDL, say) or some
other means; an indication of a consumer payload in the Poll response
informs the sending RMP directly. The sending RMP can already decide
when a resend might be necessary and any indications the receiving RMP
provides would be a new extension to the WS-Reliability protocol. Such
an extension would, primarily, reduce the size of the known subset
requiring resends since any a priori information would indicate only
that a consumer payload had been possible.
3) The description of duplicate elimination in section 3.2.2 does not
describe the content of either the immediate underlying protocol
response nor an RM-Reply that may be sent later (in the callback or poll
RM-Reply cases). In particular, whether or not consumer payloads from
the response sent the first time (in the case when the earlier response
had been lost) may be returned during this iteration is left
unspecified. As Sunil has stated, some have implementation issues with
caching payloads in the receiving RMP though this is the most
appropriate way to handle the duplicate message. We might thus avoid a
new requirement but concentrate on ensuring caching is allowed.
3a) Sunil mentioned in a private email that no RM-Reply pattern at all is
used unless an acknowledgement was requested. I have not searched but
am pretty sure we have not described RM fault semantics, duplicate
elimination nor consumer payloads in this situation. For example, will
the callback be invoked or the poll include any information about
successfully delivered messages when AckRequested did not appear in the
original message? I suspect we moved the ReplyPattern element out from
under the AckRequested to allow more generality here but the existing
text implies an RM-Reply is always publicized.
4) The RM Fault processing model described in section 4.5 previously
attempted to cover responses to duplicate messages though the reader was
not directed here from 3.2.2 "Duplicate Elimination". I believe we have
agreed not to lump faulting and responding to a duplicate message
together in the document and have addressed the editorial issues in
section 4.5.
4a) Sunil has outlined a few issues with including a SOAP fault when
returning an RM fault. If I remember correctly, the original reason
for this addition was avoiding an empty SOAP Body when the sending RMP
expected a consumer payload. If we accept all of the restrictions and
clarifications mentioned above (in (1) especially), the problem will be
limited to use of the Response RM-Reply pattern (request-response
underlying protocol utilization) with a consumer response expected.
The SOAP Fault would cause the underlying protocol response to match
the signature expected in that case but may cause interoperability
problems in other cases. Sunil would like to avoid the inherent
redundancy of a message containing both SOAP and RM faults. He also
points out that "send a SOAP fault" is not specific enough.
5) The specification is generally vague about the meaning of
"application-level" and talks about WSDL primarily as describing the
producer / consumer interaction without making this distinction clear.
In some cases, WSDL operation or MEP types are applied at all levels.
As a relatively editorial matter, we must clarify distinctions between
exchanges controlled by the RMP processing ("underlying protocol" or
SOAP message exchanges) and how the RM-Reply patterns map to those
exchanges and the producer / consumer interface (sometimes described
using consumer-provided WSDL). In effect, the producer and consumer sit
on top of an RMP that is (abstractly) implemented using an underlying
SOAP processor. That SOAP processor provides the one-way or
request-response message deliveries used for the RM-Reply patterns. The
RMPs effectively provide another, higher quality of service, WSDL
binding that the producer and consumer use to interact. We probably do
not need to include the SOAP processor explicitly in our model but we do
need to be clear throughout or document what level is discussed.
Primarily, section 5.2 will be the main place in which the producer /
consumer interface come to the fore. And, no, this is not as large a
change as it seems.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
