Steve, I guess in the real world NCs will and do "suddenly" become unavailable. But I would assume that if a NC destroys a PullPoint it has created, it means that the NC is no longer interested in getting the messages provided by the PullPoint as opposed to an NC going down and coming back up. Therefore, I would prefer to use the word "permanently" become unavailable, rather than "suddenly". I would see the lack of notification to the NP in the "permanent" situation as leaving the NP "high and dry". I would have expected a more `"friendly" environment in situations where things are under systematic control.

Kirk Wilson Technical Specialist

603 823 4023

-----Original Message----- From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggr...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 10:42 AM To: Wilson, Kirk D Cc: ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]

Hi Kirk: interesting question with respect to the Pull Point destruction. However, from the perspective of a NP, the PullPoint is just another NC. Do you think that the PullPoint going away is somehow different than any generic NC suddenly being unavailable to receive NotificationMessages delivered through the Notify or through a "raw" message send?

sgg ++++++++ Steve Graham (919)254-0615 (T/L 444) STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA Member, IBM Academy of Technology <Soli Deo Gloria/> ++++++++

"Wilson, Kirk D" To Steve Graham/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <Kirk...@ca.com> <ws...@lists.oasis-open.org> cc 05/20/2005 10:23 AM Subject RE: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]

Steve,

There something that is unclear to me regarding the proposal as presented in your attachment. Messages are to be sent by the NP to the PullPoint through the PullPoint's Notify operation. Upon destruction of the PP, doesn't the NP need to be "informed" that messages no longer need to be sent to that PullPoint. Shouldn't that point be made in the proposal, or at least raised as an implementation issue?

Kirk Wilson Technical Specialist 603 823 4023

-----Original Message----- From: Steve Graham [mailto:sggr...@us.ibm.com] Sent: Friday, May 20, 2005 12:26 AM To: ws...@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsn] Pull proposal [1.4]

Here is a write up of the Pull Proposal we agreed to. Please comment on surprises/accuracy. I include text that illustrates the scenarios relating the incoming wrapped and raw messages with the responses to GetMessages request.

++++++++ Steve Graham (919)254-0615 (T/L 444) STSM, IBM Software Group, Web services and SOA Member, IBM Academy of Technology <Soli Deo Gloria/> ++++++++