[Nsi-wg] Feedback for WS protocol

[John MacAuley]

> 
> Still, the underlying SOAP transport (HTTP/TCP or SMTP, and I'm not sure we even have to consider the last) will take care of delivering the message, and if an ack isn't received you will get an error message (losing the connection for HTTP, getting a delivery error for SMTP). Unless we are planning to use SOAP over UDP it really isn't needed.
> 

I undertand your point.  At the moment the response contents are null, so an empty element will be returned.  No additional value except that it guarantees that at least the far end's stubs have received the message and returned success.  We could get away without providing an output and only a fault element.  This will force the web service client to wait for a response, otherwise it can use a fire-and-forget model since the communications can be optimized to one way.  HTTP will return a 200 OK if the provider side accepts the message and does not generate a fault.

> 
> baounce?
> 
> I get what it is used for, and yes it isn't a session, but it certainly isn't a transaction either (NSI is not a transactional protocol and doesn't introduce the concept of a transaction). I suggest requestId :-).
> 

I didn't finish my thought before sending.  I was going to suggest something like correlationId, but requestId is good as well.

John.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 1791 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.ogf.org/pipermail/nsi-wg/attachments/20110714/11054039/attachment.bin