[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [no subject]
loophole that permits stray messages to
"sneak-in" just before a termination, without any opportunity to be
acknowledged"
This is what the specification says:
"After an RM Source receives the <SequenceAcknowledgement> acknowledging
the
complete range of messages in a Sequence, it sends a <TerminateSequence>
element, in the body of a message to the RM Destination to indicate that
the
Sequence is complete, and that it will not be sending any further
messages related to
the Sequence."
This, at least to me, says pretty clearly that a conformant RMS will not
send TerminateSequence until all messages have been acknowledged, and
that it will not send any new messages after sending TerminateSequence.
To be sure, duplicates of messages previously sent (and acknowledged)
may arrive at the RMD after TerminateSequence. But these are
duplicates, not unacknowledged messages.
The specification has a definition of "normal termination" which
requires that all messages be acknowledged, and therefore the "situation
whereupon normal termination of a sequence some messages that were
previously send and never acknowledged..." is, by definition,
impossible. The "accuracy of acknowledgments upon normal sequence
termination" is 100% perfect.
Now, during the call today, Jacques seemed to suggest that what was
behind this is that a sender may need/want to terminate the sequence
prior to all messages being acked; this may well have merit, or at the
very least is worthy of discussion; the current spec clearly does not
allow it, and it is well within the responsibility of the TC to consider
such a change.
But if the request is to change the definition of sequence termination,
or maybe to provide an additional type of termination, the issue
description should clearly say just that ("we should allow for normal
termination prior to acknowledgement of all messages"); but nothing in
the text of the issue suggests that we are looking for a change in
definition of normal termination.
I don't know whether procedure allows revising the text of the issue for
clarity. As it stands now both the description and justification below
contain statements that appear to me to be factually incorrect, or at
best highly misleading. It should not be surprising that this generates
long discussions in the confcall about whether to even accept it as an
issue.
I will speculate that I may have an idea of what Jacques may be after:
a sender may, for a variety of reasons which we could discuss (e.g. it
is being shut down for maintenance longer than the sequence expiration),
be forced to stop resending; if so, it would be nice to know which
messages actually got delivered or didn't, so that it may send the
undelivered ones again later in another sequence w/o duplicating them.
AckRequested does not serve this purpose because, unless the sequence is
actually terminated, there may be more message out there in flight which
will actually arrive at the RMD and be delivered. But I'm just
speculating, the issue doesn't say that.
Jacques, please clarify.
Giovanni.
________________________________________
From: Jacques Durand [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:50 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE, twin sister of i019
I realize that we should probably discuss this new issue in conjunction
with i019, i.e. before closing on i019.
(it is stating a similar problem, but for normal termination cases.)
Daniel:
With the perspective of this new issue, I am leaning more toward your
proposal to mark as "last" the final sequence status.
Jacques
Title: Accuracy of acknowledgement status upon normal sequence
termination
Description: The specification does not address the situation where upon
normal
termination of a sequence, some message that were previously sent and
never acknowledged
(for which RM Source had stop any resending effort) has been received
late by RM Destination,
e.g. between the sending of the last SequenceAcknowledgement and before
the reception of
a TerminateSequence message. This is the twin sister of issue i019 which
deals with a similar
problem but in case of fault termination.
Justification: Normal termination is actually a fairly common event
(compared to sequence fault)
and it is expected that sequences will be terminated even if they have
missing messages.
The specification is too lax on the loophole that permits stray messages
to
"sneak-in" just before a termination, without any opportunity to be
acknowledged.
Target: core
Type: design
Proposal: A final acknowledgement status could be sent back that
reflects the exact state
at termination time. That could be done by sending (or by making
available for polling
even after the sequence is terminated) a last SequenceAcknowledgement
element, at the time
the RM Destination terminates the sequence (either at reception of
TerminateSequence,
or due to timeout). Such a SequenceAcknowledgement element should have a
"last" marker.
------_=_NextPart_001_01C59ED3.265F1220
Content-Type: text/html
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" =
xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" =
xmlns:st1=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" =
xmlns=3D"http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40";>
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV=3D"Content-Type" CONTENT=3D"text/html; =
charset=3DUS-ASCII">
<meta name=3DGenerator content=3D"Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"place"/>
<o:SmartTagType =
namespaceuri=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name=3D"PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"MS Mincho";
panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
</head>
<body lang=3DEN-US link=3Dblue vlink=3Dpurple>
<div class=3DSection1>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Giovanni:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I think you are right on the spot about the misunderstanding =
that we had
in the conf call today. Indeed, I interpreted this statement of the =
spec as nothing
more than the normal use for TerminateSequence, non-exclusive of other =
uses:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D1 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;color:red'>"After an RM Source receives =
the
<SequenceAcknowledgement> =
acknowledging<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D1 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;color:red'>The complete range of messages in a =
Sequence,
it sends a <TerminateSequence><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D1 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;color:red'>element, in the body of a message =
to the RM
Destination to indicate that<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D1 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;color:red'>the Sequence is complete, and that =
it will
not be sending any further<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D1 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;color:red'>messages related to the =
Sequence."</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I did NOT interpret it as:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 color=3Dred face=3D"Courier =
New"><span
style=3D'font-size:10.0pt;color:red'>" an RM Source MUST NOT send =
<TerminateSequence>
in other cases where it has not received full acknowledgement of the =
complete
range of messages in a Sequence."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Therefore we were not discussing on the same base of =
premises.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Your speculation is right: I assumed that seq termination (an =
operation
that is more meaningful to RMD than to RMS, given that the ending of a =
sequence
has already been notified by LastMessage sending ) may be appropriate =
in some
cases where not all messages have been acked. My recent rewording of =
the issue clarifies
this a bit, but is still based on the same interpretation of =
TerminateSequence,
so I may need to shelve it and submit an issue on TerminateSequence =
instead.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Note: I believe your last paragraph below just illustrates the =
need for
clearly stating the valid use cases as in Gil doc, so that we can sync =
up on
these before even discussing the issues =
...<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Regards,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Jacques <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: Giovanni Boschi [mailto:gboschi@sonicsoftware.com] <br>
Sent: Thursday, August 11, 2005 3:47 PM<br>
To: <st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Jacques Durand</st1:PersonName>;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org<br>
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE, twin sister of i019</span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>From the issue justification, "The specification is too =
lax on the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>loophole that permits stray messages to =
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>"sneak-in" just before a termination, without any =
opportunity
to be<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>acknowledged"<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>This is what the specification =
says:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>"After an RM Source receives the =
<SequenceAcknowledgement>
acknowledging<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>complete range of messages in a Sequence, it sends a
<TerminateSequence><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>element, in the body of a message to the RM Destination to =
indicate
that<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Sequence is complete, and that it will not be sending any =
further<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>messages related to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the Sequence."<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>This, at least to me, says pretty clearly that a conformant RMS =
will
not<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>send TerminateSequence until all messages have been =
acknowledged, and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>that it will not send any new messages after sending =
TerminateSequence.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>To be sure, duplicates of messages previously sent (and =
acknowledged)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>may arrive at the RMD after TerminateSequence. But these =
are<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>duplicates, not unacknowledged =
messages.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The specification has a definition of "normal =
termination"
which<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>requires that all messages be acknowledged, and therefore the
"situation<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>whereupon normal termination of a sequence some messages that =
were<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>previously send and never acknowledged..." is, by =
definition,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>impossible. The "accuracy of acknowledgments upon =
normal
sequence<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>termination" is 100% perfect.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Now, during the call today, Jacques seemed to suggest that what =
was<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>behind this is that a sender may need/want to terminate the =
sequence<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>prior to all messages being acked; this may well have merit, or =
at the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>very least is worthy of discussion; the current spec clearly =
does not<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>allow it, and it is well within the responsibility of the TC to
consider<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>such a change.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>But if the request is to change the definition of sequence =
termination,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>or maybe to provide an additional type of termination, the =
issue<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>description should clearly say just that ("we should allow =
for
normal<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>termination prior to acknowledgement of all messages"); =
but
nothing in<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the text of the issue suggests that we are looking for a change =
in<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>definition of normal termination.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I don't know whether procedure allows revising the text of the =
issue
for<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>clarity. As it stands now both the description and =
justification
below<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>contain statements that appear to me to be factually incorrect, =
or at<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>best highly misleading. It should not be surprising that =
this
generates<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>long discussions in the confcall about whether to even accept =
it as an<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>issue.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I will speculate that I may have an idea of what Jacques may be =
after:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>a sender may, for a variety of reasons which we could discuss =
(e.g. it<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>is being shut down for maintenance longer than the sequence
expiration),<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>be forced to stop resending; if so, it would be nice to know =
which<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>messages actually got delivered or didn't, so that it may send =
the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>undelivered ones again later in another sequence w/o =
duplicating them.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>AckRequested does not serve this purpose because, unless the =
sequence
is<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>actually terminated, there may be more message out there in =
flight
which<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>will actually arrive at the RMD and be delivered. But I'm =
just<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>speculating, the issue doesn't say =
that.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Jacques, please clarify.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Giovanni.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>________________________________________<o:p></o:p></span></font=
></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>From: <st1:PersonName w:st=3D"on">Jacques =
Durand</st1:PersonName>
[mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com] <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 6:50 =
PM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE, twin sister of =
i019<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>I realize that we should probably discuss this new issue in =
conjunction<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>with i019, i.e. before closing on =
i019.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>(it is stating a similar problem, but for normal termination =
cases.)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Daniel:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>With the perspective of this new issue, I am leaning more =
toward your<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>proposal to mark as "last" the final sequence =
status.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Jacques<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Title: Accuracy of acknowledgement status upon normal =
sequence<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>termination<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Description: The specification does not address the situation =
where
upon<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>normal <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>termination of a sequence, some message that were previously =
sent and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>never acknowledged<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>(for which RM Source had stop any resending effort) has been =
received<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>late by RM Destination, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>e.g. between the sending of the last SequenceAcknowledgement =
and before<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the reception of <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>a TerminateSequence message. This is the twin sister of issue =
i019
which<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>deals with a similar<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>problem but in case of fault =
termination.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Justification: <st1:place w:st=3D"on">Normal</st1:place> =
termination is
actually a fairly common event<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>(compared to sequence fault)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>and it is expected that sequences will be terminated even if =
they have<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>missing messages.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>The specification is too lax on the loophole that permits stray
messages<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>to <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>"sneak-in" just before a termination, without any =
opportunity
to be<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>acknowledged.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Target: core<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Type: design<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>Proposal: A final acknowledgement status could be sent back =
that<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>reflects the exact state<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>at termination time. That could be done by sending (or by =
making<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>available for polling<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>even after the sequence is terminated) a last =
SequenceAcknowledgement<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>element, at the time <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>the RM Destination terminates the sequence (either at reception =
of<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>TerminateSequence, <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>or due to timeout). Such a SequenceAcknowledgement element =
should have
a<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'>"last" marker.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=3DMsoPlainText><font size=3D2 face=3D"Courier New"><span =
style=3D'font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>
------_=_NextPart_001_01C59ED3.265F1220--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]