[graap-wg] More async/asymmetry comments

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Karl: I am also very much interested in your proposal.
Discussing this case with another colleague of mine,
I got a bit worried in the implementation issue, which
I think is due to my ignorance of WSRF resource modelling and
I 'd like to clarify this part. (It also relates a little bit to the 
consistency issues.)
To make sure that my worry is just a mistake on my part, could you bear 
with my question below?



Karl Czajkowski wrote:

>There are really two reasonable variants to doing this, depending on
>how we wish to think about the lifecycle of Agreement resources.
>
>  1) Change the Agreement resource lifecycle to again capture
>     "pre-agreement" and possibly "post-agreement" states.
>
>     The pre-agreement state can be used to allow a simple low-latency
>     Agreement creation step and then have the "responder agrees to
>     offer" decision made asynchronously.  The initiator can poll or
>     subscribe for notifications to learn what decision is made.
>
>  
>
If the initiator decided to subscribe, can you tell me the sequence of 
subscribe/notify?

1)my original assumption.
1.1) Initiator requests CreateAgreement
1.2)Provider creates an empty Agreement (With agreement state 
Not-Yet-Complete)and
returns an EPR to the created Agreement.
1.3)Initiator subscribes for the notification using the returned EPR.

My worry is what if the provider had been very quick and had agreed to 
the agreement and had
changed the agreement status to Agreed between timing 1.2 and 1.3?

Would the Initiator be notified of this at the timing of 1.3? or would 
the initiator have to do some kind of
atomic chack and subscribe?


Best regards
Toshi

-- 
We have moved to a new Office!!
Toshiyuki Nakata ?????
Internet System Laboratories NEC 
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, 
Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan 
Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60210)
Fax +81-44-431-7681 (NEC Internal 22-60219)