Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission

[Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>]

Ah good point.

I was trying to distinguish between positively unacked messages (I have 
an ack but it doesn't include message 3) and the situation where I 
haven't yet got an ack.

Is this any better?
"The RMS MUST retransmit any messages that are unacknowledged in any 
received SequenceAcknowledgement messages".

Paul

Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Well, since Acks can be received out of order I don't think you want 
> to say "most recent".
> I think sticking with just talking about "unacked" messages is safer.
> thanks,
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>*
>
> 11/02/2006 07:35 PM
>
> 	
> To
> 	"Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> cc
> 	
> Subject
> 	RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
>
>
>
> 	
>
>
>
>
>
> May I suggest ammending your proposal in the following way:
>
> Change line 230 to read:
>
> "While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the following
> invariants are REQUIRED for correctness:"
>
> Then change the new bullet to be inserted after line 238 to read:
>
> "The RMS MUST retransmit any messages that are missing from the most
> recent Acknowledgement Message".
>
> - gp
>
> " . . and nice red uniforms."
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:40 PM
> > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
> >
> > We do not normatively state that any messages must be
> > retransmitted unless the server Nacks them.
> >
> > Since the Protocol Invariants are there to explain how we
> > actually ensure reliable transmission, that is the
> > appropriate place to add this.
> >
> > Proposal:
> >
> > Add a new invariant:
> > While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the RMS must
> > retransmit any messages that are missing from the most recent
> > acknowledgement message.
> >
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject:                  [ws-rx] Potential new issue: retransmission
> > Date:                  Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:22:25 +0000
> > From:                  Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
> > Organisation:                  WSO2
> > To:                  ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org 
> <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> >
> >
> > While looking at PR016, I could only find three places where we
> > normatively define retransmission:
> >
> > 1. Upon receipt of a NACK, you must retransmit that message
> > 2. Upon MessageNumberRollover, you must continue to
> > retransmit messages
> > 3. In the state tables, we have a state corresponding to this.
> >
> > Given that NACK is optional, MessageNumberRollover highly unlikely,
> > doesn't seem like we've defined this very well!
> >
> > How about adding as a protocol invariant that the RMS must retransmit
> > unacknowledged messages?
> >
> > Paul
> >
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >
> > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> > paul@wso2.com
> > (646) 290 8050
> >
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Paul Fremantle
> > VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
> >
> > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> > paul@wso2.com
> > (646) 290 8050
> >
> > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
> >
> >
> >
>

-- 
Paul Fremantle
VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 
OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair

http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
paul@wso2.com
(646) 290 8050

"Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com