OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

amqp message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [amqp] Review: Message Annotations For Response Routing Version 1.0 (WD02)


Oops - I actually spotted these first two issues when going through the doc, but obviously failed to transcribe them from my written notes

On Wed, 9 Oct 2019 at 15:42, Keith Wall <kwall@redhat.com> wrote:
A couple of comments:

Section 2.5, Message Rewriting

- in sentence "One alternative mechanisms [if] for the intermediary to
rewrite the request message." the if ought to be is.

Agreed
Â
- in sentence "Further the node at the rewritten address will need to
convert any references to the message-id of the [rewritten] message to
a reference to the message-id of the original message (e.g. in the
correlation-id property)" I think the word "rewritten" should be
"response". Also "the node at the rewritten address" seems awkward.
Is this trying to indicate the "rewriting node"?


Yeah - this needs wordsmithing. I think it might be better to start off by defining the rewriting noe as a term (or coming up with an alternative name for it)
Â
Section 2.3 uses "responseaddresssupported"Â where as Section 3 uses a
hyphenated form "response-address-supported"


Thanks - didn't spot that one
Â
Front page, Working Draft number disagrees with the document's footer.


I'll try to remember to fix this for the next WD, though all this boilerplate will be replaced in a SPRD version anyway.
Â
-- Rob







On Wed, Oct 9, 2019 at 11:05 AM Rob Godfrey <rgodfrey@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> I've re-reviewed this document [1] and think there are a few trivial items that need to be addressed before progression to CSD / CSPRD:
>
> Section 2 Response Annotations, first paragraph following "Let us consider an example:"
>Â ÂThe last sentence prior to the bullet points states "G_A is listening on an address T.." - It should instead say something like "G_A has established a receiving link from target T in the remote network" ... the term "listening" has no defined meaning in AMQP.
>
> Section 2.2 Target Capabilities, paragraph following the table.
>Â Â"If a target does not support response annotations, then a which carries the response [...]" - this should read "If a target does not support response annotations, then a message which carries the response [...]"
>
> Section 2.3 Delivery Annotations (Request Message)
> ÂIn the definition for the annotation name "response-address-cookie-expiry". First sentence "If present this delivery annotation [...]" should read "If present, this delivery annotation". In the same paragraph the last sentence currently reads "After this point in time messages sent with the address-cookie annotation set to the value of the response-address-cookie should be expected to be rejected." Do we all agree the a disposition of rejected is correct, and if so what error would we expect to be carried with this?
>
>
> Given the above comments I think we need a new working draft before progressing to CSD/CSPRD. Does anyone else have any comments on this document?
>
> -- Rob
>
> [1] https://www.oasis-open.org/committees/document.php?document_id=65466&wg_abbrev=amqp
> --
> _____________________________________________________________________________
>
> Red Hat GmbH, www.de.redhat.com,
> Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
> Managing Directors: ,Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander
>


--
_____________________________________________________________________________

Red Hat GmbH,Âwww.de.redhat.com,
Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: ,Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]