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

In thinking about this one I think the SHOULD was probably added to allow 
for situations where the termination/error condition is so severe that it 
can't send any message at all - and not because the notion of sending it 
(if it can) is optional.  So, perhaps we should focus on coming up with 
text to clarify this.  Perhaps something like:

Current text:
If the event source terminates a subscription unexpectedly, a 
SubscriptionEnd SOAP message SHOULD be sent to the endpoint reference 
indicated when the subscription was created (see 4.1 Subscribe).

Proposal:
If the event source terminates a subscription unexpectedly, a 
SubscriptionEnd SOAP message MUST be sent to the endpoint reference 
indicated when the subscription was created unless the event source is 
incapable of transmitting any messages at all (see 4.1 Subscribe).

And, of course, make the same change in ws-enum.  :-)

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.