[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
I was trying to not say the same thing twice -- potential for inconsistency as we go forward and make other changes to the spec before it is final. So I have a pointer in section 3.4 to the right fault. -Anish -- Doug Davis wrote: > > 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] >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]