[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] PR26 - Retransmission
I think there was some consensus on the mailing list in the past to simplify the text for referencing unacknowledged messages [1]. By applying that simplification and changing "MUST" to "SHOULD", the proposal below would read as: While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the RM Source SHOULD retransmit unacknowledged messages. Let us try to hash out any further changes/refinements to the proposal on the mailing list before the conf-call. We have many other major open issues to be discussed on the conf-call! - Sanjay [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200611/msg00043.html >-----Original Message----- >From: Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com] >Sent: Wednesday, Dec 13, 2006 6:43 AM >To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [ws-rx] PR26 - Retransmission > >Hi all, > >The current proposal for PR26 reads as follows: > >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. > >I don't think that is quite right. Using a lowercase must >doesn't seem to >help much, and an uppercase MUST would be too strong. >(Consider a device >with limited storage, they might be happy to retransmit messages up to >some limit, but need to recover storage after that point. >There are plenty >of other impl choices that don't like this MUST too.) > >How about the following alternative: > >Add a new invariant: >While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the RM Source SHOULD >retransmit any messages that are missing from the most recent >acknowledgement message. > >The editors may wish to play with the trailing part of the >sentence, to >cope with the permutations of Acks/Nacks, and the definition of 'most >recent', but I don't think that is the core of the issue. I think the >SHOULD makes the common impl choice clear, without forcing >implementers >into a corner. > >Note that this proposal basically matches the point that we >got to on the >last call. I hope that most people are able to accept it. > >Thanks > >Matt > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]