RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2006 9:54 AM
To: Durand, Jacques R.; Matthew Lovett
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

I agree there are more ? than in your post. There are a number of differences that make your proposal difficult to evaluate though. Specifically there is a break in your tables that does not occur in WD12 that separates events that cause state transitions and those that don’t. There are also some events that are in both the RMS and RMD tables that are only in one or the other in your proposal, one example is “elapse expires duration”.

I only modified RMS table so far – so that we can discuss first the direction of these updates before updating RMD accordingly.

What motivated the change of connecting/connected to activating/activated?

Activating / active.

Seemed more intuitive at first to talk of an “active [sequence] ” state, as opposed to “connected [sequence]”, given that this suggests the other side is also connected, which may not quite be the case. But I can see that “connected” conveys the fact that the sequence is at least known from both sides. No qualms keeping connecting/connected. We could use also “established” like in TCP for describing the normal transfer state.

The division of the events into generate/receive greatly complicates these tables, are you convinced it really provides additional clarity?

I find it rather clarifies the tables… IMO it certainly helps figure why in some cases we can afford to use “N/A” while in others you can’t because the RMS/RMD has no control on these events and must decide what to do in any state it finds itself when getting these. Also for some events like Faults that can be generated by either RMS or RMD, it was unclear whether these were either received or generated – rather confusing.

-Jacques

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

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

From: Durand, Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 7:47 PM
To: Marc Goodner; Matthew Lovett
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

Mmmh… I have been using the latest source provided to me by Matt Lovett I believe.

Looking quickly at WD12 pdf, the tables are pretty much the same as what I started from – actually even more undetermined (still many “?”)

So the changes I proposed (in red in the RTF) depart indeed enough from the source tables to make it hard to identify the original ;-)

Jacques

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:14 PM
To: Durand, Jacques R.; Matthew Lovett
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

Actually, I’m looking at this now and it looks like it is using an old version of the state table. I can’t line this up against what is in WD12 at all.

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

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

From: Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:30 PM
To: Durand, Jacques R.; Matthew Lovett
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

Jacques,

Is this document the proposed updates you note below?

View Document Details:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.php?document_id=17864

Download Document:

http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/17864/state-tables-JD-3-diffs.rtf

Marc Goodner

Technical Diplomat

Microsoft Corporation

Tel: (425) 703-1903

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

From: Durand, Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:02 PM
To: Matthew Lovett
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

Matt:

Most proposed updates (except some in my #2) still apply to your latest tables – will propose a sample of updated tables.

Also propose the following:

- to not " Fault a Fault", e.g. if RMS receives a Message Rollover Fault for an unknown sequence,

it will not complain back with "Unknown Sequence Fault".

- When sequence expires: propose it closes rather than terminates: one must still be able to query

it to get a final Ack.

Thanks,

Jacques

From: Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:20 AM
To: Durand, Jacques R.
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] More on i113

Hi Jacques,

Which version of the tables are you working from? Issue i096 was recently accepted by the TC, and includes an updated PDF for the tables. Unfortunately this issue hasn't been folded into the current working draft.... so you should probably describe your changes relative to i096 for now. My note to the TC that contained the proposal for i096 contains both a PDF and the original open office doc, so it should be quite easy to produce an annotated doc from there.

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200604/msg00011.html

Thanks

Matt

"Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com> wrote on 26/04/2006 04:15:10:

> While working on a more detailed proposal for 113, it appears to me
> that these tables need a bit more work than I thought.
>
> (Again I see these tables as more than just accessory: they are
> necessary to nail down corner cases, and are ultimate ref material
> for developers.)
>
> In addition to items currently in 113, I propose the following –
> depending on reactions on the mailing list, I would update 113 appropriately:
>
> 1- As mentioned before, for each one of the tables, events that may
> occur fall in two categories:
>
> (a) those generated by the RM component (e.g. RMD generates and
> sends a Fault) and under full control of the RM component,
> (b) those “received” from outside , e.g. RMS gets a Fault message.
>
> for (a) events, it is OK to use “N/A” for the non-relevant states
> (the RM component has control over generating these events), but we
> cannot just use “N/A” for (b) events, that the RM component must be
> prepared to handle in whatever state it is in, even if such events
> occur when they shouldn’t. We need to tell what is the effect of
> receiving (b) events in every state (even if most of the times, sate
> remains the same). Can’t just brush it off with N/A…
>
> 2- There are still several TBD values in these tables – some of them
> are in particular related to the case where, say the RMS, gets a
> fault like “Seq Closed Fault” or “Seq Terminated Fault”, while RMS
> has not even closed or terminated the Seq (mostly, a decision from
> RMD). I assume an RMS should update to “closed” when getting a Seq
> Closed Fault, even if it has never sent CloseSequence (like it does
> for termination). This has to appear in the table.
> Another case of questionable transition, is the “Elapse Expires
> duration” event. Should close IMO instead of terminate, as RMS may
> want to be able to query a final Ack.
>
> 3- there are events ( lines) in these tables that actually do not
> cause any state transition. E.g. in RMS table: “new message”,
> “retransmit of unack message” , “SeqAck (non final)”, “Nack”. But it
> seems we are interested in reporting what should the RMS behavior be
> for these in each current state. I’d suggest to do this outside
> these state transition tables, e.g. in another table where we
> consider specific events that do not cause any transition, - but
> need to tell what should the RMS (RMD) behavior be depending on the
> state it is in -, (kind of “decision table”).
>
> Jacques
>
>

ws-rx message