[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: New proposed issues 10/20 - 10/26
Please let me (and the list) know if I missed any issues
sent to the week in the last week. Proposed-01 Title: State Transition Table Proposed-02 Title: Retransmission behavior Proposed-03 Title: Definition for "Reliable Message" Proposed-01 Title: State Transition Table Description: The current specification has an
example of message exchange between two ends. The example represents a subset
of possible states that the protocol can transition to. It is left to the
reader/implementor to verify all the possible states of the protocol. Justification: A full state transition table is
needed in order to ensure proper design of the reliable protocol. Proposal: To produce such a table. Proposed-02 Title: Retransmission behavior Description: The Core specification depends on message retransmission by
the RMS of unacknowledged messages in order for a reliable exchange to be
accomplished, yet does not describe this behavior in any way. Discuss and
conclude the manner and the location for such an exposition in the core
specification. Proposed-03 Title: Definition for "Reliable Message" Description: there are several references to "reliable
message" (section 1, 2 intro, 2.1, 2.3) that are not backed by a clear
definition. Justification: Terminology section is defining key concepts,
yet does not explain what a reliable message is (and now other definitions are
also referencing "reliable message"). The main requirement of
inclusion of a wsrm:Sequence element which could back an intuitive definition,
is not currently related to this expression at all, (related to DA instead)
which is confusing. Target: core Type: editorial Proposal: 1- Add a terminology entry. It could be: Reliable message: a message submitted by the Application
Source to an RM Source via the "Send" operation, for transmission over the protocol defined in this
specification. 2- In 3.1:
associate the main protocol requirement (Sequence element) with the definition
of "reliable message" instead of with a vague requirement of being
subject to some DA: Replace: "Messages for which the delivery assurance applies MUST
contain a <wsrm:Sequence> header block." With: "Reliable Messages MUST contain a <wsrm:Sequence>
header block." (DA and protocol being in fact separately defined, DA should
now more abstractly mandate the use of "reliable messages" if we
still want to pre-req one to the other.) |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]