ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue i096
- From: Matthew Lovett <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>
- To: "Paul Cotton" <Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Apr 2006 15:18:03 +0100
Hi Paul,
The columns that were removed were on
the RMD side. In the old table the author had assumed that if a RMD receives
a message with a message number greater than the limit, that it entered
a new 'rollover' state. I don't believe that state added any value, and
don't think that the main spec mentions, implies or defines it. Having
reached that conclusion I nuked the entire column ;) The state transition
that now occurs is that a fault is returned to the sender, but that the
RMD is still in the 'Connected' state, so the RMS may continue to retransmit
earlier messages.
The majority of the RMS changes are
to ensure that each cell contains both an action and a next state, as the
gaps were potentially misleading.
The RMD table changes as mentioned above,
and I also clarified the rows corresponding to message arrival (with message
number in range vs message number out of range).
I removed the RMD row corresponding
to "Unrecoverable error on creation" as I don't think a sequence
would be created at all in that case.
I removed the RMD retransmitted message
row as the RMD won't always know if a message is retransmitted (the first
transmission might have been completely lost). The main message received
row should be robust enough to deal with this, and further detail sails
close to RMD/AD communication issues that are out of scope.
I removed the RMD "message rollover
fault" row, as an RMS is never going to send that fault to an RMD.
I removed the RMD "terminate sequence"
row as it was a duplicate (see 3 rows above).
I hope that helps! Thanks for asking
- I'm sure that you were not the only person who wanted a guide to the
changes.
Cheers,
Matt
"Paul Cotton"
<Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com>
05/04/2006 14:55
|
To
| Matthew Lovett/UK/IBM@IBMGB, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] Issue i096 |
|
Could you give us some explanation
of the changes? In particular why are you proposing to remove two
complete columns?
Paul Cotton, Microsoft
Canada
17 Eleanor Drive, Ottawa, Ontario K2E 6A3
Tel: (613) 225-5445 Fax: (425) 936-7329
mailto:Paul.Cotton@microsoft.com
From: Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: April 5, 2006 9:32 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Issue i096
Hi all,
Here's an updated PDF for the state tables. There are quite a few updates,
all highlited in blue. If this proposal is accepted by the TC, I think
this leaves the tables in a reasonable state (no pun intended), so if anyone
has any further ideas for changes they are probably best handled under
new, specific issues.
I also have the openoffice doc that produced the PDF - it may be useful
for the editors if the TC accepts the proposal.
Thanks,
Matt
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]