Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: semantics of "at most once" delivery assurance

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Two related questions that need to be answered are:
can a RM receiver send a NACK in case of AtMostOnce DA? If yes, what is 
the RM sender supposed to do when it receives such a NACK and it is 
never going to retransmit the message (as it has already thrown away the 
message) -- i.e. to prevent the RM receiver from NACKing the message 
repeatedly, should the RM sender send a specific fault?

-Anish
--

Tom Rutt wrote:
> *Title*: Semantics of  "At most once" Delivery assurance.
> 
> *Description*:
> The semantics of the "at most once" delivery assurance are not clear.
> 
> One interpretation is that at most once implies that the sender is not 
> required to retransmit mesages which are not acked.
> 
> *Justification*:
> It is important to clarify whether the sender must retransmit 
> unacknowledged messages when the "at most once" delivery assurance is in 
> use.
> 
> *Target*: (core | soap | wsdl | policy | schema | all)
> all
> 
> *Type: *(design | editorial)
> design
> 
> *Proposal*:
> 
> Clarify the semantics.  There are at least three possible semantics 
> associated with "at most once"
> 
> proposal 1) at most once means that the sender will never retransmit a 
> message, regardless of whether it is acknolweged by the destination.
> 
> Proposal 2) The sender may retransmis messages, but is not required to 
> to so,  however the destination will not deliver duplicates
> 
> Proposal 3) the sender must retransmit messages, however the destination 
> may drop messages in times of resource saturation, but will never 
> deliver a duplicate.
> 
> *Related issues*:
> Issue 9
>