Re: [wsrm] a draft for discussed Time and Group issues

[Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>]

Jacques Durand wrote:

> Two things in this mail, separate but not unrelated, for review:
>
>Two RMPs implementing this specification will always be failure-synchronized:
>If a Receiver fails to deliver a message (invalid, expired, duplicate, out-of-order)
>sufficient notification will be generated to the Sender so that the Sender can infer
>that the delivery failed.
>
>NOTE: a message may be positively acknowledged, and yet never delivered to the
>receiver application, if it has been held by the receiver RMP as out-of-order 
>then discarded. In such a case however, a fault would be generated to notify the Sender 
>of the delivery failure. It is the absence of such fault, not just the presence of a
>positive Acknowledgement, that allows a Sender to conclude that a message was
>delivered to the receiver application.
>
This Fault would need to be communicated to the sender somehow.   A 
future request could be answsered, but we have no notificaiton mechanism 
to have the receiver push the failure notificaiton
to the sender.

Are you suggesting the poll feature be used for the sender to find out. 
That would mean
the group info needs to be held until the sender "finds out" the group 
is dead.

Tom Rutt

-- 
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt		email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@fsw.fujitsu.com
Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732 774 5133