- From: Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 09:55:46 -0800
- To: Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com>
- CC: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>, "Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B4CB7A2.7070204@oracle.com>
I can see where you are coming from on your first point. Your second point is a simple assertion of what we are debating; should SubscriptionEnd be optional? I can't support your option (1). I can support your option (2). - gp On 1/12/2010 9:48 AM, Ram Jeyaraman wrote: > > One of the reasons why a SHOULD is used for SubscriptionEnd message is > because it is possible that a service may suffer abrupt shutdown and > hence may not be able to send the terminal message. Besides, a service > simply may not support SubscriptionEnd. > > > > I can see two possible ways to tackle this issue: > > > > 1. Keep it optional > > a. Leave the specification as is -- that is, the SubscriptionEnd > SHOULD be sent. > > > > 2. Keep it conditional [Gil's proposal (attached) as clarified > below] > > a. Service behavior > > i. > The enumeration data source may or may not support sending EnumerationEnd. > > ii. > If EnumerationEnd is supported, the data source will advertise this > via the enumeration policy. > > iii. > If the service advertises support for EnumerationEnd and the client > sends EndTo, it must make a best attempt to send EnumerationEnd. > > iv. > If the service does NOT advertise support for EnumerationEnd and the > client sends EndTo, it must generate an SubscriptionEndNotSupported fault. > > b. Client behavior > > i. > Depending on whether the service supports EnumerationEnd or not, the > client sends an EndTo. > > > > I am continuing to think about other possible ways. > > > > 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 12, 2010 8:00 AM > *To:* Li, Li (Li) > *Cc:* public-ws-resource-access@w3.org > *Subject:* RE: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous > > > > > Li, > I tend to agree. I think there's always an implicit exception with > any MUST in the specs because if the system crashes and doesn't > recover its entire state then clearly the MUST will probably not > happen. So I interpret these things as "if you're still up and > running then you MUST...". The reason I was ok with calling out this > one case is because this message/situation is specifically for the > case where something really bad happened. But, I can go with your > proposal to go with the MUST w/o the "unless..." part - it seems less > confusing. > > 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. > > *"Li, Li (Li)" <lli5@avaya.com>* > Sent by: public-ws-resource-access-request@w3.org > > 01/12/2010 10:43 AM > > > > To > > > > <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> > > cc > > > > Subject > > > > RE: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous > > > > > > > > > > Eventing 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). This > endpoint reference MUST refer to an endpoint that supports the > SubscriptionEndPortType portType. > > Proposal: > 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 unless the event source is incapable of > transmitting any messages at all. > > I understand that the proposed change is to narrow the scope of > exception to the requirement. However, I also feel that MUST + exception > = SHOULD. > > I think MUST always means "absolute requirement" which may not be > achieved by a conformant implementation due to unforeseen situations. > > If we adopt the proposal, should we also check exceptions to all MUST? > For example, the (unless .... incapable ...) seems applicable to the > following requirement in WS-E 4.1 as well: > > [Body]/wse:Subscribe/wse:Delivery/wse:NotifyTo > This is an OPTIONAL element. When present, this element indicates that > notifications MUST be sent to the EndpointReference identified by this > element. > > I think it's better to just say MUST without any exception, or use > SHOULD, but not the mixed. > > Thanks. > > Li > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > Subject: > Re: [Bug 8286] New: description of Subscription End ambiguous > From: > Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> > Date: > Tue, 5 Jan 2010 14:24:57 -0800 > To: > Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com> > > To: > Ram Jeyaraman <Ram.Jeyaraman@microsoft.com> > CC: > "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" <public-ws-resource-access@w3.org> > > > 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. >> >> >>
Received on Tuesday, 12 January 2010 17:56:51 UTC