[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i022, RM Assertions
|
Retransmission parameters as well as
algorithms are problematic for the following reasons: 1) The characteristics of the path from source to destination are
often unknown and often are time-variant. 2) 2) Retransmissions if too frequent cause flooding and potential
catastrophic degradation if the path is near saturation 3) The Path may consist of not only transmission means, but also
intermediaries with attendant processing delays 4) Exponential backoff may be implemented many ways, there is more
than one algorithm any they have different parameters 5) Backoff algorithm selection may be implementation specific, what is
good for cell phones may not be good for cluster interconnected nodes 6) I have found no theoretical modeling available of the case of web
services cum intermediaries 7) Most published data concerning the behavior of backoff algorithms
examine fairly simple network segment related saturation and do not address
client, server, let alone intermediary saturation. 8) Exponential backoff algorithms need a recovery mechanism for those
situations where there is a high standard deviation of delay. 9) TCP/IP experience has shown that efficiencies are improved with an adaptive
mechanism as described in TCP Extensions for High Performance (see RFC 1323
RTTM) Proposal: Clearly
a backoff mechanism is required; however implementation specific needs are not
served well by the selection of any specific algorithm for all potential implementations
of this specification. It is recommended that implementers utilizing IP
based transmission media consider the mechanism described in RFC 1323. Delete
all re-transmission parameters as described in the specification since they are
unnecessary and unhelpful should the implementer use an algorithm with a
different set of controls. Thanks -bob From: Vikas Deolaliker
[mailto:vikas@sonoasystems.com] Description: (revised) The RM policy assertions, specifically, InActivityTimeout,
BaseRetransmissionInterval and ExponentialBackoff parameters need to be more
finely specified. The following are the areas which need finer specification a) Default
Value for InActivityTimeout, BaseRetransmissionInterval and ExponentialBackoff:
There needs to be a
default set for these parameters. Currently the specification says “If
omitted, there is no implied value.” Since these parameters dictate the
delivery of the message, an implementation is going to assume a default
anyways. Not specifying this will make implementations assume a different
default value and cause unwanted timeouts. b) Definition
of InActivity There needs to be a discussion of
definition of inactivity. If RMS sends a sequence to RMD and is waiting for the
response which is delayed for whatever reason, is that inactivity on the link
between RMS and RMD counted towards InActivityTimeout? If yes, then it is
entirely possible that while waiting for a sequence response, RMS could timeout
due to InActivity. c) Applicability
of InActivityTimeout: It needs to be
specified to which end this parameter is applicable. It seems like sequence
creator starts the timer for InActivityTimeout. If the intention is that this
timer exists on both ends of a sender and receiver engaged in a RM sequence, we
need to define a method for synchronization of the timer value of this
parameter between them. For example an KeepAlive message would need to be
defined for keeping sequence alive. d) Corner Case
Handling: There needs to be a
discussion of the corner case when the BaseRetransmissionInterval exceeds
InActivityTimeout. This can happen when the RMD is indisposed and
ExponentialBackoff drives up the value of BaseRetransmissionInterval. In this
case my retransmission is schedule later than the timeout that I need to abide
to. What state does the RMS enter in this situation? e) BaseRetransmissionInterval
Needs an Upper Bound: If an RMD is offline for extended
period of time, one can expect the BaseRetransmissionInterval to be
exponentially backed off i.e. become large enough to be not meaningful anymore.
Having an upper bound on this parameter will enable the RMS to stop
retransmitting and report a fault. Proposal: (revised) 1) InActivityTimeout
and BaseRetransmissionInterval can be merged into one i.e. BaseRetransmissionTimeout.
Having just one counter on the RMS and RMD will reduce the run-time resources
(much simpler state machine) required to implement RM-Assertions and avoid
confusion (unknown states in state machine) caused by two timeouts. Having a
separate timeout for sequence and retransmission may not be necessary as
activity on the RM link is transmission/retransmission. I believe one timeout
i.e. BaseRetransmissionTimeout does not change the behavior of the system. Once
this timeout occurs the sequence has to timeout as the implication of the
timeout is the destination is either congested or offline. 2) If
InActivityTimeout has to be there as a parameter, we need to fully specify it
with mechanisms for synchronization and keepalive. In addition, we need to
discuss how the corner cases and other conflicts that occur when one has two
timeout (as discussed in a-e above) are handled. Vikas Sonoa Systems, Inc. (408) 748-1730 x100 |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]