RE: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue

OK Sanjay - go for your version of "Description" .

I think the "justification" part is precise enough as to show some of the effects- even if partial - that justify action.

I guess that also addresses Dave Chappell comment?

Jacques

From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2005 7:07 PM
To: Jacques Durand; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue

Hi Jacques,

I agree with you in principle that our issue descriptions should be precise and accurate. However the danger with honing and sharpening an issue too much now (as opposed to later when we actually schedule the issue for TC discussion) is that the discussion may prematurely move in the direction of a particular solution.

I guess we are both agreeing that the current design of terminating the entire sequence upon encountering faults appears to be too broad sweeping and may not have taken into account all the consequences as well the other possible courses of action. Now we may scratch our heads and attempt to exhaustively list the problems with the current design or we could simply step back, log the high level problem area for now and review all the available options in the light of the actual problem to be solved later.

I agree that your issue text below correctly identifies the key problems with the current design (handling of messages in the abruptly terminated sequence on fault). However there may still be some other unclear aspects that we haven't yet thought about such as - whether the Source is allowed to reuse the identifier of the aborted sequence. Therefore I was suggesting to phrase the issue such that it describes the root cause of the problem rather than trying to list all the symptoms.

Having said that, I am fine with your proposed text with the hope that we will remember to visit the root cause at the time of actually discussing a solution. I guess that would be an AI for myself :-)

Thanks,

Sanjay

From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Tuesday, Jul 19, 2005 16:09 PM
To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue

How about:

"In such cases any message sent by the Source for this sequence that was valid but not yet acknowledged, or acknowledged but not yet delivered, will be lost with no good recovery or resending option."

(I prefer to point to a precise issue rather than just complain about "unclear semantics" ....:-)

Jacques

From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 6:42 PM
To: Jacques Durand; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue

One comment inline ...

From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Monday, Jul 18, 2005 18:15 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] A rewording of "Sequence termination on Fault" issue

Title: Sequence termination on Fault

Description: The RM Destination imperatively terminates a sequence due to one of these unrecoverable errors:

- wsrm:SequenceTerminated

- wsrm:MessageNumberRollover

- wsrm:LastMessageNumberExceeded

Then any pending non-acknowledged message will be lost for the sequence.

<Sanjay> In addition, I am not sure about the fate of acknowledged messages when a sequence is abruptly terminated. Consider the case where the contract between the Destination RM and the Destination Application is In-Order delivery, and also consider that there are some holes in the sequence at the time of sequence termination due to a MessageNumbeRollover fault. In this case, it is not clear how the Destination RM is supposed to handle the acknowledged messages in the incomplete sequence. If you agree, you may want to change the last sentence above to something on the lines of - "The semantics of sequence termination due to a fault occurrence are not clearly specified".</Sanjay>

Justification: Unless an accurate and final acknowledgement status was sent back at the time the sequence is closed, the Source will not know if some non-acknowledged messages were actually received before the termination occurs. This gives the source two unpleasant options: (a) resend all non-acknowledged message in a new sequence, with the risk of causing undetectable duplicates, (b) not resend any, and these will be lost.

Target: core

Type: design

Proposal: Two options need be discussed: Option (1): At the time a Destination-controlled termination gets into effect, a final and accurate Acknowledgement for the entire sequence is sent back. Option (2): After the fault was notified to Source, simply rely on regular termination procedure (either expiration-based, or under Source control, so that the Source can complete its resending of pending messages and get the final acks), meanwhile reject any message for this sequence that exceeds the ending number in case of MessageNumberRollover or LastMessageNumberExceeded.

ws-rx message