RE: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous

Why do we have a FilteringNotSupported fault then?  That's an optional 
element and an optional feature - yet we tell the subscriber that we don't 
support it.   By your first sentence we should silently ignore the Filter 
element if we don't support it, and we should ignore any unknown filter 
dialects - after all, they're optional. 
Its not clear to me why we would not want to be user-friendly and let a 
subscriber know that what they asked for will not be adhered to.  We're 
not talking about an extension (which can be silently ignored w/o an mU=1 
type of flag), we're talking about something that is defined by the base 
spec.

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org
01/08/2010 03:20 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
cc

Subject
RE: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous






The notion of optionality implies duality, that is, SubscriptionEnd may or 
may not be supported. Further, such optional behavior should not affect 
normal processing.
 
>From a client subscriber perspective, optionality means the following:
 
1.        The Subscribe request containing an EndTo is accepted normally 
(that is, the subscription is NOT rejected because the event source cannot 
support SubscriptionEnd).
2.       It MAY receive a SubcriptionEnd if the event source is capable of 
sending SubscriptionEnd. No guarantees.
 
Based on this, I do not see a reason to fault a Subscribe containing an 
EndTo when the event source does not support SubscriptionEnd.  This allows 
the clients to function as intended irrespective of whether an optional 
behavior is supported or not by the service.
 
Thanks.
 
From: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
[mailto:public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Doug Davis
Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 6:04 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access@w3.org
Subject: Re: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous
 

+1 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-resource-access/2010Jan/0009.html 


thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog. 


Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org 
01/05/2010 05:24 PM 


To
Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com> 
cc
"public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> 
Subject
Re: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous
 








This is unacceptable because the Subscriber/Event Sink has no way of 
knowing if SubscriptionEnd is supported. It supplies an EndTo EPR, the 
Subscribe request succeeds, it gets some Notifications, then the 
subscription terminates unexpectedly (something it doesn't know about), 
then . . . nothing.

If support for SubscriptionEnd is really optional (something I don't 
remember to agreeing to - but my memory is shot), then it seems to me that 
we should:

1.) Define a new fault for a Subscribe message that includes an EndTo EPR 
along the lines of wse:SubscriptionEndNotSupported.

2.) Add a parameter to the wse:EventSource policy assertion that indicates 
support for SubscriptionEnd.

- gp

On 1/3/2010 9:17 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote: 
I agree with this proposal except for the part where support for the 
SubscriptionEnd operation is required. During our earlier conversations, 
we determined that support for the SubscriptionEnd operation is optional 
for the Event Source. Given that, I suggest an amended proposal (change 
MUST to MAY):

"If the event source terminates a subscription unexpectedly and the 
wse:EndTo EPR was present in the Subscribe message for that subscription 
(see 4.1 Subscribe), the SubscriptionEnd message MAY be sent to the 
endpoint referenced by that EPR. The message MUST be of the following 
form:"

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org [
mailto:public-ws-resource-access-notifications-request@w3.org] On Behalf 
Of bugzilla@wiggum.w3.org
Sent: Friday, November 13, 2009 1:44 PM
To: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
Subject: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=8286

          Summary: description of Subscription End ambiguous
          Product: WS-Resource Access
          Version: PR
         Platform: All
       OS/Version: All
           Status: NEW
         Severity: normal
         Priority: P2
        Component: Eventing
       AssignedTo: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org
       ReportedBy: gilbert.pilz@oracle.com
        QAContact: public-ws-resource-access-notifications@w3.org


Section 4.5 "Subscription End" starts with the following paragraph:

"If the event source terminates a subscription unexpectedly, 
SubscriptionEnd SOAP message SHOULD be sent to the endpoint reference 
indicated when the subscription was created (see 4.1 Subscribe). This 
endpoint reference MUST refer to an endpoint that supports the 
SubscriptionEndPortType portType. The message MUST be of the following 
form:"

The "SHOULD" in this sentence is ambiguous. Does it refer to the act of 
transmitting the message or does it refer to where the message is 
transmitted?
In both cases this should be a "MUST"; the SubscriptionEnd message MUST be 
transmitted, and it MUST be transmitted to the endpoint referenced by the 
EndTo EPR.

The sentence "This endpoint reference MUST refer to an endpoint that 
supports the SubscriptionEndPortType portType" is inappropriate and 
redundant; this is a constraint on the event sink, not the event source. 
This same constraint is already documented in the description of 
/wse:Subscribe/wse:EndTo.

Proposal: replace the above paragraph with the following:

"If the event source terminates a subscription unexpectedly and the 
wse:EndTo EPR was present in the Subscribe message for that subscription 
(see 4.1 Subscribe), the SubscriptionEnd message MUST be sent to the 
endpoint referenced by that EPR. The message MUST be of the following 
form:"


--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA 
contact for the bug.
You are the assignee for the bug.