Re: [wsrm] more editorial comments

Title: more editorial comments

Jacques,

 

Good point. Currently the section 2 Messaging 
Model is 

implicitly assuming the underlying protocol is Request/Response 

type protocol 
(Eg. HTTP), which is not good actually, I believe. 

Since WS-Reliability should be used with SMTP 
also.

So I think this should be clarified. We may need 
to add

some more messaging model for one way type 
underlying

protocol (Eg. SMTP).

 

For Section 5, I agree with you.

I appreciate your proposed wording.

 

Thanks,

 

Iwasa

 

 

  
----- Original Message ----- 

  
From: 
  Jacques 
  Durand 

  
To: WSRM 
  (E-mail) 

  
Sent: Thursday, January 08, 2004 
  8:01 AM

  
Subject: [wsrm] more editorial 
  comments

  

  
Section 2: Messaging Model: 
  
- need to more explicitly state the 
  assumed properties of this 
"underlying protocol" . We implicitly assume it is 
a request-response messaging protocol. We should 
  state so beforehand. 
Because SOAP 
  by itself does not assume this (unless bound to HTTP). 
An important consequence of this Messaging Model, is 
  that WS-R 1.1 only covers 
reliability of business "requests", not of business "Responses". 
  

  
Section 5: HTTP binding: 
- need to remind that this spec does not cover 
  reliability for business messages 
over HTTP responses (e.g. as may occur with WSDL req-resp 
  operations). 

  
More generally we should say a word about 
  the WSDL MEPs that the spec covers: 
(a) reliability of One-way ops is fully addressed. 
(b) reliability of Request-response ops is only 
  covered on the Request side. (and I think we 
could be more specific here, as only guaranteed 
  delivery of the response causes problem 
and would need be adapted, per our past investigation.) 

  
Iwasa, I can propose a wording  for 
  these, if this mail raises no further discussion. 

  
Jacques