Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Anish,
  Ah, so you meant to erase the
text around message # rollover fault (sec 3.4).  I think we should
keep it there even though its a dup of what's in section 4.
-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>

07/27/2006 03:01 PM

To	Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	Bob Freund-Hitachi <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>, "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> Bob,
>   for InvalidAck - should it really close the sequence?  Since
Acks are 
> just informational I'm not so sure they should initiate the closing
down 
> of a sequence even when they have bad data - I'd prefer to let the
> receiver of the InvalidAck fault make that decision for itself ( see
> 5.1.3).

Yes, I see your point about seq spoofing. Agree.

>   for seqClosed - I don't think the "action upon receipt"
should be to 
> terminate - I think 'close' would be more appropriate.
> 

Makes sense.

> btw - there were changes to the expires text in the pdf - I'm assuming
> those were left over from other other work and not related to this,
right?
> 

Not sure which changes you are talking about.
The only changes are in section 4 and in section 3.4.
Note that the PDF uses WD-15 as the base.

> -Doug
> 
> 
> 
> *"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>*
> 
> 07/27/2006 05:59 AM
> 
>                  
> To
>                  "[WS-RX]"
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
>                  
> Subject
>                  [ws-rx]
proposal to address issue 140
> 
> 
>                  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anish has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal
to 
> address issue 140.
>  
> While preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which
we 
> enumerate below:
>  
> Sequence Terminated Fault:
> There is no text that details under what conditions a sequence 
> terminated fault might be raised other than mention of a vague “protocol
> error”.
> One way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in
> section 4, however it is more concise to represent these in the state
> tables of appendix D were normative.
>  
> Unsupported Selection
> This fault description deserves elucidation
>  
> Thanks
> -bob[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-issue140.pdf" deleted
by Doug 
> Davis/Raleigh/IBM]