re:Feedbacks to WS-RM Public Review Draft

[Sugamata <hsedi@attglobal.net>]

Dear WS-RX WG members,

We reviewed WS-ReliabileMessaging Committee Draft 04 among eBusinss Asia 
Committee.
And we would like comment some feed backs for the documentation.

I resend our comments in line of this message.

Sincerely,

Hisanao Sugamata

ECOM, Japan,
Chairman,eBusinss Asia Committee

==================================================================================================
2006/10/18
eBusinss Asia Committee
Feedbacks to WS-RM Public Review Draft

There is interoperability issue with this specicication, since it doesn't 
define underlying protocol bindings (e.g.,HTTP bindings). The spec or its 
profile should explicitly define underlying protocol bindings.

1.Public Review Draft (Committee Draft 04)
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/tc-announce/200608/msg00005.html

2.Feedbacks to the Committee Draft 04
2.1 This specification dose not define how to realize "Duplicate 
Elimination" and "Message Ordering". It is a serious issue for industry 
organizations in Japan and Asia to adopt the specification.
We strongly recommend to define them to make various implementations 
interoperable.

2.2 It is not clear whether AckRequest message can be sent independently or not.
   The 3.8 describes:
"The RM Source MAY request an Acknowledgement Message from the RM　　 
Destination at any time by including an AckRequested header block in any 
message targeted to the RM Destination."
   In detail, is the following message which doesn't include 
<wsrm:Sequence>, allowed
to send? If so, the above sentence should explicitly describe it. See the 
first four lines in Section 3.9.
         <soap:Envelope>
             <soap:Header>
                 <wsrm:AckRequested>
                     <wsrm:Identifier>http://example.com/test</wsrm:Identifier>
                 </wsrm:AckRequested>
             </soap:Header>
         </soap:Envelope>
   By the way, the section 3.9 describes:
         "The RM Destination informs the RM Source of successful message 
receipt using a SequenceAcknowledgement header block. The RM Destination 
MAY Transmit the SequenceAcknowledgement header block independently or it 
MAY include the SequenceAcknowledgement header block on any message 
targeted to the AcksTo EPR."
   And it is clear the SequenceAcknowledgement can be sent independently.

2.3 Line697     Editorial
         "see Section 3.5" should be "see Section 3.8" ?

2.4 Line667     Editorial
         "see Section 3.1" seems not appropriate. It should be other appropriate section.

2.5 Line 704-709
The following sentences needs to be refined or requires examples.
" When the RM Source specifies the WS-Addressing anonymous IRI as the 
address of the AcksTo EPR, the RM Destination MUST Transmit any 
SequenceAcknowledgement headers for the created Sequence in a SOAP envelope 
to be Transmitted on the protocol binding-specific channel. Such a channel 
is provided by the context of a Received message containing a SOAP envelope 
that contains a Sequence header block and/or a AckRequested header block 
for that same Sequence identifier."
   Maybe some examples help reader understand what it meant.
   It is not clear whether the SequenceAcknowledgement must be sent on 
*its* back-channel of the underlying transport protocol.
   e.g.,
         Here is the following scenario:
         1.CreateSequence has "Anonymous" value for AcksTo element.
         2.RM Source sends a message A with AckRequested on HTTP Request.
         3.RM Source sends a message B on HTTP Request.

         Question:
         In this scenario, does RM Destination have to send Sequence 
Acknowledgement for message A on the HTTP Response in 2, but disallow to 
send it on HTTP Response in 3?
         Or does the spec allow to send it on the HTTP Response in 3?
         The spec is not clear about the above scenario. The spec should clarify it.


2.6 Line339-348
It is not clear what the following sentences means:
CreateSequence\AcksTo = wsa:anonymous
     Does it mean the SequecenAcknowledgement must be on the HTTP Response 
to the original message? If so, it is beyond the WS-Addressing definition, 
I believe.
         By the way, the spec doesn't allow wsrm:Anonymous to be used in AcksTo.
     If the spec doesn't allow wsa:anonymous in AcksTo, then it should be 
explicitly described

2.7 Section3.9 and Appendix B
Needs explanation of ws-addressing composability.
It is not clear how ws-addressing/soap request message and response message 
maps to AckRequested and SequenceAcknoweldgement message.

2.8 Section3.10
It is not described how you can identify whether the RM destination is 
polling a message. This could be in RM policy assertion.

--



----------------------------------
Next Generation
Electronic Commerce Promotion Council
   ( ECOM, Japan)

TEL: 81-3-3436-7568

Hisanao Sugamata
-----------------------------------