W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > July 2009

Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

From: Chou, Wu (Wu) <wuchou@avaya.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 20:09:28 -0400
Message-ID: <F81BDFA28AE48D4793E253362D1F7A740112ACB6@300813ANEX2.global.avaya.com>
To: "Bob Freund" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
Cc: <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>

Glad to see some good progress being made. We would like to add a
further work issue to your list:

4) Using Policy inside the delivery element to describe delivery

Rationale: If any xml under xs:any is allowed as extension elements to
change the default Push delivery, how to uniquely determine the
semantics and behavior represented by these extension elements in a
light weight and computational efficient way will become an acute issue.

In addition, event source needs a way to advertise the allowed delivery
extensions/combinations. And if an event subscription is accepted, the
event subscriber should know exactly what delivery mechanism is used by
the event source to send event notification.

After some study and comparison, we would like to propose using Policy
inside the delivery element to address this issue. We will submit a
detailed proposal for the WG to discuss. This proposal will cut across
the current TBD topics 1-3 and as a result may need to be handled before
the others.

Many thanks,

- Wu Chou.

Wu Chou, IEEE Fellow, Ph.D. | Director |Avaya Labs Research | AVAYA |
233 Mt. Airy Road| Rm. 2D48 | Basking Ridge, NJ 07920 | Voice/Fax:
908-696-5198 / 908-696-5401 | wuchou@avaya.com

From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com
B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E> > 
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2009 13:43:03 -0400
Message-Id: <FDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697@hitachisoftware.com> 
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org

The following is a draft that incorporates the current state of  
agreement on Issue-6692.
Note that within the document there are several areas marked "TBD"  
which represent further aspects that are yet to be thrashed out.
This version has been reviewed by both Microsoft and IBM and both are  
agreeable as to it use as the reference for further issue negotiation.
The summary of further work needed is :
1) Fault behavior relating to delivery extensions as the original  
fault definition related to @mode
2) extension negotiation behavior if any since the original @mode  
fault optional detail element was thought to provide some negotiation  
mechanism albeit unreliable
3) Use of the word "Push" rather than simply the one default method of  
notification delivery.  Nothing particularly distinguishes "Push" from  
normal asynchronous delivery and its use in th text is infrequent

I would be interested in discussing this on the next call as well as  
the opinion of folks as to the potential division of this issue into  
three additional issues as represented by the points above.

*	application/msword attachment: wseventing-6692-9-1.doc

*	application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
Received on Tuesday, 7 July 2009 00:10:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:34:50 UTC