[bt-spec] BTP Issue 80 : CONTEXT_REPLY unnecessary for CONTEXT/cohesion

[BTP issues maintainer <peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This issue has been added to the BTP issue list

BTP Issue 80 : CONTEXT_REPLY unnecessary for CONTEXT/cohesion

Submitter: Choreology
Category: minor technical
Description:
There appears to be no requirement derived from "checking" for a CONTEXT_REPLY to be received if 
the CONTEXT was for a cohesion.

CONTEXT_REPLY for an Atom is to ensure that all attempted enrols for the atom worked, and avoid risk of an "orphan" inferior that the coordinator doesn't know about when it confirms. If there were such, the atom could apparently confirm when work has been done in the atom that isn't known about - the rest of the atom confirms and this orphan will (probably) eventually cancel. To prevent this, checking rules apply - until the CONTEXT_REPLY comes back, confirmation is not allowed.

But with a propagated *Cohesion* CONTEXT, there is no reason why Inferiors can't be missed out. The Terminator will determine the confirm-set on the basis of which Inferiors are enrolled - if it has an acceptable set, but there is a late-arriving ENROL, that would-be inferior just gets missed out.

There is a possibility that something that tried to ENROL in a Cohesion but failed to contact the Superior might want to send CONTEXT_REPLY/repudiated back towards the application initiator to say that there was a problem.

CONTEXT_REPLY for a cohesion may also be needed in the one-shot case (see separate issue on one-shot)

---

To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list).

The current draft, with line numbers is available in pdf format and word format.

To add a new issue, please email to Peter Furniss peter.furniss@choreology.com. It helps if you propose a category (technical, minor technical, editorial, minor editorial).