Scott
I am totally supportive of the proposed fault/ack message flow. Call it a "control flow." It should be independent of the application/ data MEP and mandatory, in my opinion. That would mean that 1 way application MEF should support the 2 way fault/ack message flow
I also am unsure if it needs to be described in WSDL, but it should use underlying SOAP and XML format
alan
----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Werden <>
Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 09:25:37 -0700
To: "''''" <>, Sunil Kunisetty <>
Subject: RE: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To Live (TTL)
> Paolo-
>
> I agree with your description of the fault/ack message flow. I described the
> same thing in my email I sent yesterday. The important thing is that WS-RM
> may require an additional MEP, beyond the application level MEP defined in
> the WSDL, for it to carry out its ACK or fault, but this would be completely
> independent of, and would not affect, the application MEP. However, I am not
> sure this WS-RM MEP needs to ever be defined in the WSDL.
>
> Scott
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paolo Romano [mailto:]
> > Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 6:02 AM
> > To: Sunil Kunisetty;
> > Cc:
> > Subject: Re: [wsrm] Rel 44: Duplicate Elimination and Time To
> > Live (TTL)
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > How does "using the Headers" solution solve the above
> > case? If we have
> > > to send the Fault in Headers (as HeaderFault), that will
> > still result in
> > > sending a SOAP response and the MEP gets altered.
> > >
> > > So I fail to understand how the above unresolved case is solved?
> > >
> > > -Sunil
> > >
> >
> >
> > I might be wrong, but my idea is the following: Let's
> > consider the case when an
> > existing application has defined a one way MEP in its WSDL.
> > If the application
> > layers itself upon WS-RM, the whole WSDL (ws-rm
> > header+app.dependant) should
> > still be one-way. If a fault has to be sent back to the ws-rm
> > sender processor,
> > this is still possible because the latter has defined a WSDL
> > one-way operation
> > for receiving the ack. This message globally alters the MEP
> > and I suppose this
> > is what you do not like of this approach.
> > Anyway this is a WS-RM level message, not an application
> > level message.
> > Therefore, it does not alter the application defined MEP,
> > which is one-way. In
> > fact, if the WS-RM receiving processor sends back a fault,
> > then the message is
> > not delivered to the application, and the application one-way
> > MEP just does not
> > take place.
> >
> > In other words, the application defined MEP simply does not
> > take place, because
> > the message is stopped at the ws-rm receiver. There is no
> > problem with sending
> > back a fault message, because we have defined a ws-rm wsdl
> > one-way operation to
> > receive acks and faullts. So we have a one-way only from the
> > ws-rm sender to the
> > ws-receiver, followed by an asynch response always at the same layer.
> >
> > I do not know if I have been clear, I think my idea could be
> > better explained
> > with some pictures but I am overwhelmed with work at the moment...
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Paolo
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paolo Romano
> >
> >
> >
> > You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.ph
> p
>
> You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
>
Alan Weissberger
2013 Acacia Ct
Santa Clara, CA 95050-3482
1 408 863 6042 voice
1 408 863 6099 fax
