ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:24:52 -0400
yea, but you removed all of the text
about what the max number is - and I liked that being part of the core
of the spec.
-Doug
Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>
07/27/2006 04:09 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
|
cc
| ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
|
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]