Issue 6284: Negotiate Session Message Orientation (firewall-traversal-ftf) Source: Adiron, LLC (Mr. Polar Humenn, polar(at)adiron.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The NegotiateSession message is a single typed GIOP message that is sent between both Client and Server to negotiation service contexts, and further to initiate and negotiate bidirectional GIOP. Having a single message is problematic in that a connection, once negotiated bidirectional may have different requirements for such things like Codesets, etc. Getting a NegotiateSession message after a bidrectional set up, the endpoints will have difficulty discerning the orientation of the NegotiateSession message. At the very least NegotateSession messages should have an orientation, much like the GIOP Request and Reply messages do. I'm not so sure they must be correlated with a "request id", but different message types would help. I would suggest two messages, NegotiateSessionRequest and NegotiateSessionReply to maintain the client-server orientation, respectively. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: October 2, 2003: received issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== X-Authentication-Warning: greene.case.syr.edu: polar owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2003 14:53:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Polar Humenn X-X-Sender: polar@greene.case.syr.edu To: issues@omg.org cc: firewall-traversal-ftf@omg.org, corba-rtf@omg.org Subject: Negotiate Session Message Orientation The NegotiateSession message is a single typed GIOP message that is sent between both Client and Server to negotiation service contexts, and further to initiate and negotiate bidirectional GIOP. Having a single message is problematic in that a connection, once negotiated bidirectional may have different requirements for such things like Codesets, etc. Getting a NegotiateSession message after a bidrectional set up, the endpoints will have difficulty discerning the orientation of the NegotiateSession message. At the very least NegotateSession messages should have an orientation, much like the GIOP Request and Reply messages do. I'm not so sure they must be correlated with a "request id", but different message types would help. I would suggest two messages, NegotiateSessionRequest and NegotiateSessionReply to maintain the client-server orientation, respectively. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Polar Humenn Adiron, LLC mailto:polar@adiron.com 2-212 CST Phone: 315-443-3171 Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Fax: 315-443-4745 http://www.adiron.com Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2003 12:31:59 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: tom@coastin.com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en To: Polar Humenn CC: issues@omg.org, firewall-traversal-ftf@omg.org, corba-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Negotiate Session Message Orientation Polar Humenn wrote: The NegotiateSession message is a single typed GIOP message that is sent between both Client and Server to negotiation service contexts, and further to initiate and negotiate bidirectional GIOP. Having a single message is problematic in that a connection, once negotiated bidirectional may have different requirements for such things like Codesets, etc. Getting a NegotiateSession message after a bidrectional set up, the endpoints will have difficulty discerning the orientation of the NegotiateSession message. At the very least NegotateSession messages should have an orientation, much like the GIOP Request and Reply messages do. I'm not so sure they must be correlated with a "request id", but different message types would help. I would suggest two messages, NegotiateSessionRequest and NegotiateSessionReply to maintain the client-server orientation, respectively. How would the reply be correlated? Can you put more than one service context value in ether message? Tom Rutt ------------------------------------------------------------------- Polar Humenn Adiron, LLC mailto:polar@adiron.com 2-212 CST Phone: 315-443-3171 Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Fax: 315-443-4745 http://www.adiron.com -- ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 X-Authentication-Warning: greene.case.syr.edu: polar owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 3 Oct 2003 13:51:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Polar Humenn X-X-Sender: polar@greene.case.syr.edu To: Tom Rutt cc: issues@omg.org, firewall-traversal-ftf@omg.org, corba-rtf@omg.org Subject: Re: Negotiate Session Message Orientation On Fri, 3 Oct 2003, Tom Rutt wrote: > Polar Humenn wrote: > > >The NegotiateSession message is a single typed GIOP message that is sent > >between both Client and Server to negotiation service contexts, and > >further to initiate and negotiate bidirectional GIOP. > > > >Having a single message is problematic in that a connection, once > >negotiated bidirectional may have different requirements for such things > >like Codesets, etc. Getting a NegotiateSession message after a > >bidrectional set up, the endpoints will have difficulty discerning the > >orientation of the NegotiateSession message. > > > >At the very least NegotateSession messages should have an orientation, > >much like the GIOP Request and Reply messages do. > > > >I'm not so sure they must be correlated with a "request id", but different > >message types would help. I would suggest two messages, > >NegotiateSessionRequest and NegotiateSessionReply to maintain the > >client-server orientation, respectively. > > > How would the reply be correlated? This is what I am getting at. All these problems exist. Some of these service contexts require replies. But where are they correlated. NS messages that are just flying around the channel without any orientation leads to problems with Birdirection. > Can you put more than one service context value in ether message? That is one of the nasty problems. You can put what ever you damn please in them, and it's up to your GIOP message engine to handle that complexity. -Polar > > Tom Rutt > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Polar Humenn Adiron, LLC > >mailto:polar@adiron.com 2-212 CST > >Phone: 315-443-3171 Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 > >Fax: 315-443-4745 http://www.adiron.com > > > > > > > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------- > Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com > Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133 > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- Polar Humenn Adiron, LLC mailto:polar@adiron.com 2-212 CST Phone: 315-443-3171 Syracuse, NY 13244-4100 Fax: 315-443-4745 http://www.adiron.com