Re: [ws-rx] i130 - what does ack interval refer to

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Sorry, I missed this email before sending my last message.

OK, we have option 3: Eliminate the acknowledgement interval from the 
specification.

As Doug knows, I was having trouble finding a compelling purpose for 
this value from an RMS perspective.  Perhaps, a hint for the RMS Make 
Connection interval?

I was also thinking option 3 effectively re-opens an old issue but 
didn't go looking...

thanx,
    doug

On 21/06/06 18:46, Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
>
> There were previous arguments concerning ack interval.  At that time I 
> was one that argues that it was unnecessary since efficient 
> implementations, from a latency point of view, would immediately ack 
> and that ack range could be used as an optimization based on system 
> load if there were more than one message to ack at the point when the 
> ack was to be sent.  Others argued that the ack interval could be used 
> as a “hint” to either create more opportunities for this optimization 
> or to allow perhaps ack piggybacking on response.  In both of these 
> arguments it would need to be the time that the acknowledger would 
> hold-off from sending the acknowledgement simply to permit such an 
> optimization to occur.  I still maintain that this is ill advised and 
> an unhelpful feature. But it is consistent with your case 1.
>
> The second alternative that you discuss is not discussed as far as I 
> remember.
>
> I suggest that clarification is best performed by eliminating the feature.
>
> Thanks
>
> -bob
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 21, 2006 9:32 PM
> *To:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> *Subject:* [ws-rx] i130 - what does ack interval refer to
>
>  
>
>
> All,
>   Doug Bunting and I have been discussing issue 130 ("what does ack 
> interval refer to")
> and we've hit a bit of a roadblock.  There are two (perhaps more) ways 
> of interpretting
> what the AckInterval (AI) value is meant to be used for, or what its 
> intended meaning is supposed
> to be.  The two, most likely, options are:
> 1 - the maximum time the RMD will wait, after receipt of a message, 
> before an Ack will be sent
> 2 - the maximum time the RMD will wait before between sending Acks
>
> Option 1 means that the RMD will wait no longer than the AI value 
> before it sends an Ack. The
> RMS can be assured that if it doesn't get an Ack from the RMD after 
> that time then the Ack
> was lost.  Note: a new msg into the RMD initiates the timer and the 
> sending of an Ack stops it.
>
> Option 2 means that the RMD will send out an acknowledgement, at 
> least, every AI milliseconds.
> Sort of like a heartbeat.  The RMS can be assured that it will not 
> need to wait any longer than the
> AI before an Ack will be resent.  Note: the sending of an Ack will 
> reset the timer and it will only stop
> upon termination of the sequence.
>
> Note: in both options the RMD is always free to send more acks and the 
> RMS is always free to
> send an AckReq - but we're not worried about those situations.
>
> The current wording is a bit ambiguous.So, the question for the TC 
> is....which option do we
> want to present in the spec?  Thoughts?
>
> thanks,
> -DougD
>