RE: Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft

Bob,
 
Our understanding is: the consensus at the F2F meeting is to replace the
mode uri and use Qnames to define the delivery mechanism. It is a
refactor or a replacement of the original simple mode uri for the ease
of composition. It is not to allow open ended xml to define the delivery
mechanism and lump into other extensions under xs:any.
 
By allowing that, we are making a simple replacement of mode uri
arbitrarily complex. 
 
Moreover, when a Qname is used to specify a requirement, as it is used
here for defining delivery mechanism, it is using the WS-Policy
semantics of an assertion. We will show in our proposal that this can be
described using non-nested policy assertions, but do not require a full
implementation of WS-Policy and still using simple Qname matching, since
the list of Qnames used here, as replacement of mode uri, is not nested.
 
An arbitrary open ended xml has no uniquely defined semantic meaning,
and therefore, it will introduce interoperability problem unless its
semantic interpretation is specified as in Policy. 
 
We are seriously concerned the consequence to generalize from a list of
non-nested Qnames into an arbitrary open ended xml which has no uniquely
defined semantics.
 
- Wu Chou.

________________________________

From: Chou, Wu (Wu) 
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 8:09 PM
To: Bob Freund
Cc: 'public-ws-resource-access@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Issue-6692 - Interim agreement draft



Bob,

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
extensions.

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
<blocked::mailto:wuchou@avaya.com>  

From: Bob Freund <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com
<mailto:bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com?Subject=Re%3A%20Issue-6692%20-%20
Interim%20agreement%20draft&In-Reply-To=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B2C
AC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E&References=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-
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
<mailto:public-ws-resource-access@w3.org?Subject=Re%3A%20Issue-6692%20-%
20Interim%20agreement%20draft&In-Reply-To=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9C-B7BC-B
2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E&References=%253CFDF27172-5127-4D9
C-B7BC-B2CAC4D83697%40hitachisoftware.com%253E>  

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.
thanks
-bob

*	application/msword attachment: wseventing-6692-9-1.doc
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/a
tt-0002/wseventing-6692-9-1.doc>  

*	application/pkcs7-signature attachment: smime.p7s
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2009Jul/a
tt-0002/smime.p7s>