[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] (AMQP-126) Sole Connection Detection Policy needs clarification
Lorenz Quack created AMQP-126: --------------------------------- Summary: Sole Connection Detection Policy needs clarification Key: AMQP-126 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/AMQP-126 Project: OASIS Advanced Message Queuing Protocol (AMQP) TC Issue Type: Bug Components: Sole Connection Affects Versions: soleconn-WD2 Reporter: Lorenz Quack I find Section 3.2.2 of the specification unclear. To wrap my brain around the rules and when a certain detection policy would trigger the enforement policy I consider 4 cases: an existing connection does/doesn't have sole connction enforement (SCE) permutated with the new connection having/not having SCE. Then my reading of the spec gives me this table: | old conn | new conn || "strong" | "weak" 1 | NO SCE | NO SCE || no | no 2 | NO SCE | SCE || no | yes 3 | SCE | NO SCE || yes | no 4 | SCE | SCE || yes | yes Do people agree with my reading of the spec? Was it intended this way? In the "strong" case I find the asymmetry between case 2 and 3 surprising. I find it surprising that the weak policy should trigger in case 2 where the "strong" policy does not. My guess is that the intention was that the strong policy also triggers in case 2. Overall, I find it hard to see a clear intention behind the two detectoin policies. -- This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA (v6.2.2#6258)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]