RE: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal

["Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>]

Comments in line . . . 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stefan Batres [mailto:stefanba@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 1:00 PM
> To: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal
> 
> Gil,
> 
> This seems sane too me. I do have an issue that is not 
> directly related to PR0022 but seems somewhat related to how 
> we address it. With the spec as-is and with your proposed 
> changes we don't have a quick resource reclamation mechanism 
> like we did in the submitted spec. For example:
> 
> I am an RMS.
> I send one of these TS with LM.
> Should I retry if I don't get a response? Probably yes.

I think it depends upon why the RMS is terminating. If its part of a normal
termination (i.e. the RMS has got acks for all of its messages) I would
agree that the RMS might want to retry. If the RMS is "throwing in the
towel" (i.e. basically abandoning the sequence because nothing is working) I
wouldn't bother.

> You are an RMD.
> You get my TS with LM.
> You send a TSR.
> Since the TSR might get lost, and because I might retry the 
> TS, you should be ready to respond to my TS retry.

If I were an RMD, I wouldn't worry about this. If I get a TS for a sequence
that I've already terminated, I'll just send back a SequenceTerminated (if I
remember I ever had such a sequence) or a UnknownSequence. If I were an RMS
and I retried a TS message and got back either of these faults, I don't
think I'd be out of line in assuming the first TS got through. In either
case, there's not much I can do about it.

> How long do you remember the sequence in case I retry?
> In the submitted spec, if you got the TS you could 
> immediately forget about the sequence and never respond 
> again. This worked because we put the LM in a Sequence header.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> --Stefan
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilbert Pilz [mailto:gpilz@bea.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:49 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal
> 
> Attached is a proposal for PR i022 in the form of a diff 
> against CD-04.
> The main points are:
> 
> 1.) wsrm:TerminateSequence has been expanded to include a 
> mandatory LastMsgNumber element the value of which is, 
> surprisingly enough, the number of the last message in the Sequence.
> 
> 2.) Sending wsrm:TerminateSequence is now mandatory; 
> basically the whole thing won't hold together unless the RMS 
> is required to send a wsrm:TerminateSequence.
> 
>  <<wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf>>
>

smime.p7s