[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: semantics of "at most once" delivery assurance
Two related questions that need to be answered are: can a RM receiver send a NACK in case of AtMostOnce DA? If yes, what is the RM sender supposed to do when it receives such a NACK and it is never going to retransmit the message (as it has already thrown away the message) -- i.e. to prevent the RM receiver from NACKing the message repeatedly, should the RM sender send a specific fault? -Anish -- Tom Rutt wrote: > *Title*: Semantics of "At most once" Delivery assurance. > > *Description*: > The semantics of the "at most once" delivery assurance are not clear. > > One interpretation is that at most once implies that the sender is not > required to retransmit mesages which are not acked. > > *Justification*: > It is important to clarify whether the sender must retransmit > unacknowledged messages when the "at most once" delivery assurance is in > use. > > *Target*: (core | soap | wsdl | policy | schema | all) > all > > *Type: *(design | editorial) > design > > *Proposal*: > > Clarify the semantics. There are at least three possible semantics > associated with "at most once" > > proposal 1) at most once means that the sender will never retransmit a > message, regardless of whether it is acknolweged by the destination. > > Proposal 2) The sender may retransmis messages, but is not required to > to so, however the destination will not deliver duplicates > > Proposal 3) the sender must retransmit messages, however the destination > may drop messages in times of resource saturation, but will never > deliver a duplicate. > > *Related issues*: > Issue 9 >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]