OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 114: figure 2 out of date


Thanks, this seems does make the diagram easier to follow in the explanatory text. I can certainly support this change.

 

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/


From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 7:40 AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Issue 114: figure 2 out of date

 


Marc,

Bizarre. You are right, that is what is reflected in CD03. I must have been looking at an older draft.

Regardless, I have some updates to the graphic and the text that accompanies it. If there is desire
to close THIS issue and raise another for these changes, I could live with that, although it seems
silly.

Here is the proposed new graphic. I just added numbers to coincide with the enumerated text that
follows the graphic so that each step is labeled in the graphic.



Here is the proposed revisions to the text, that aligns with the enumerated flows:

  1. The protocol preconditions are established. These include policy exchange, endpoint resolution, establishing trust.
  1. The RM Source requests creation of a new Sequence.
  1. The RM Destination creates a new Sequence and returns its globally unique identifier.
  1. The RM Source begins transmitting messages in the Sequence beginning with MessageNumber 1. In the figure above, the RM Source sends 3 messages in the Sequence.
  1. The 2nd message in the Sequence is lost in transit.
  1. The 3rd message is the last in this Sequence and the RM Source includes a <wsrm:AckRequested> Header to ensure that it gets a timely <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement> for the Sequence.
  1. The RM Destination acknowledges receipt of message numbers 1 and 3 as a result of receiving the RM Source's <wsrm:AckRequested> Header.
  1. The RM Source retransmits the unacknowledged message with MessageNumber 2. This is a new message from the perspective of the underlying transport, but it has the same Sequence Identifier and MessageNumber so the RM Destination can recognize it as a duplicate of the earlier message, in case both the originally transmitted and the retransmitted messages are received. The RM Source includes an  <wsrm:AckRequested> element in the retransmitted message so the RM Destination will expedite an acknowledgement.
  1. The RM Destination receives the second transmission of the message with MessageNumber 2 and acknowledges receipt of message numbers 1, 2, and 3.
  1. The RM Source receives this acknowledgement and sends a TerminateSequence message to the RM Destination indicating that the sequence is completed and reclaims any resources associated with the Sequence.
  1. The RM Destination receives the TerminateSequence message indicating that the RM Source will not be sending any more messages. The RM Destination sends a TerminateSequenceResponse message to the RM Source and and reclaims any resources associated with the Sequence.


Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295


"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com> wrote on 05/02/2006 06:26:41 PM:

> I have to agree with Sanjay here. The new picture you sent is what
> is currently in the doc. While it doesn’t reflect close does figure
> 2 really need to reflect close anyway? This is kind of a brief intro
> to a common RM exchange, I don’t think the intention with this
> diagram is to cover every possible permutation. I would suggest the
> figure is fine as it is not incorrect and for the messages it does
> portray it is up to date with the spec.

>  
> If there were a proposal that clearly adds close to this diagram and
> updates the corresponding text I wouldn’t have an issue with
> adopting it. In the absence of such a proposal I’d be just as happy
> to close this with no action as I don’t see anything wrong with the
> current diagram or text.

>  
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
>
> From: Patil, Sanjay [mailto:sanjay.patil@sap.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 07, 2006 1:34 PM
> To: Christopher B Ferris; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: figure 2 out of date

>  
>  
> Chris,
>  
> Could you please point out the difference between your proposed
> figure and the existing one. Perhaps it's the blurriness of the
> picture that is making it difficult for me to see the difference.

>  
> Also, I am not sure how your proposed figure matches your issue
> justification (does not reflect Close() operation).

>  
> -- Sanjay
>  
>
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, Apr 07, 2006 11:42 AM
> To: Patil, Sanjay; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: figure 2 out of date

>
> I mean replace figure 2 with this one
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295

>
> "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>

> 04/07/2006 02:07 PM
>
> To

>
> Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, "WS-RX TC" <WS-RX_TC@us.ibm.com>

>
> cc

>
>  

>
> Subject

>
> RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: figure 2 out of date

>
>  

>
>  

>
>  

>
>
>
>
>  
> I thought that once a Sequence is closed and a final Ack is sent,
> the RMD does not accept any new messages (other than protocol
> messages) in that sequence.  Am I missing something?
>  
> -- Sanjay

>
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Friday, Apr 07, 2006 5:22 AM
> To: WS-RX TC
> Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: figure 2 out of date
>
>
> Title: Figure 2 (cd3) [1] is out of date with the changes to the potocol
>
> Description:
>
> Figure 2 (cd3) [1] is out of date with the changes to the potocol
>
> Justification:
>
> does not reflect Close() operation
>
> Target: core
>
> Proposal:
>
> replace Figure 2 graphic with this one
>
>
>
> [1] http://docs.oasis-open.org/ws-rx/wsrm/200602/wsrm-1.1-spec-cd-03.pdf
>
> Cheers,
>
> Christopher Ferris
> STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
> phone: +1 508 377 9295



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]