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

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Stefan:
In the light of today's discussion, and looking at this from an
"agreement" perspective, where the requirement for an RMD to notify its
party if it missed any message in a sequence is conditioned by an
[out-of-scope] agreement that would be known from both parties:

- if there is such an agreement, then I would assume the RMS must ensure
the RMD got its LM (and if it failed to do so, should notify, etc.) But
this agreement could mean for RMS to do LM in CloseSequence and retry as
much as needed, until getting the CSR, instead of focusing on TS. That
seems more appropriate because the time between a CloseSeq and a TS is
precisely intended for both parties to get in sync.

- It does not have to mandate more from TS/TSR, which would be more
demanding on implementations: if RMD sent its TSR, it should be free to
reclaim resources immediately, regardless if RMS got it. RMS may try to
resend TS with no success but there is no harm: TS/TSR are just resource
optimization features as before, once LM has been secured by
CloseSequence exchanges.

-Jacques

-----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.

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.
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>>