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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

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

Subject: Re: NEW ISSUE: Is an implementation supporting a smaller max messagenumber valid? [Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Max message number in policy]

Though I suspect Tom has already captured my words on this, here is 
another copy:

The answer to the question asked in the title is "yes"; an 
implementation supporting less than 18 quintillion as the maximum 
message number is valid.  With regard to the specification at this time, 
no change seems necessary.  Any clarification necessary to make this 
lack of an implementation requirement clear is likely to come from 
resolutions to i013: Max message number in policy and / or Issue i019: 
Sequence termination on Fault.

Conformance clauses in the specification related to this set of issues 
(i013, i018 and i019) are deferred until churn has reduced.


On 14/07/05 14:32, Doug Bunting wrote:

> *Title*: Is an implementation supporting a smaller max message number 
> valid?
> *Description*: The existing specification includes the clause "If the 
> message number exceeds the internal limitations of an RM Source or RM 
> Destination ...".  This allows a source or destination to handle 
> unexpected failures gracefully.  It does not clearly allow, require, 
> or prevent the implementation to be designed or deployed with a 
> message number limit.  Should we support such a limitation?
> *Justification*: Issue below presupposes a "yes" answer to this 
> question.  Should decide this larger question before deciding how to 
> fill gap left if the answer is "yes".
> *Target*: core (RM spec)
> *Type*: design
> *Proposal*: I lean toward "no" but could be convinced otherwise.  If 
> "no" is the answer, the specification could change to make it clear a 
> WS-RM compliant implementation _must_ support the full unsigned long 
> range for the message number.  That likely requires conformance 
> terminology not presently in the specification; this issue is not 
> intended to broach the even-more-general subject of conformance 
> clauses.  My proposal therefore comes down to "close, no action".
> *Related issues*: Max message number in policy [no number yet]
> thanx,
>     doug
> On 12/07/05 07:39, Doug Davis wrote:
>> *Title*: Max message number in policy
>> *Description*: define a policy assertion that defines the highest 
>> message number the RM destination will accept.
>> *Justification*: without knowing in advance what the highest message 
>> number is the RM source may exceed it, causing the entire sequence to 
>> be terminated - when it may have been able to start a 2nd sequence to 
>> continue its work.  By allowing the RM source the option of 
>> terminating the sequence gracefully it can still deliver lost 
>> messages for the original sequence.  As it stands now, if the 
>> sequence is terminated the lost messages will not be resent.
>> *Target:* RM policy spec
>> *Proposal:* Define:
>> /wsrm:RMAssertion/wsrm:MaxMessageNumber
>> /wsrm:RMAssertion/wsrm:MaxMessageNumber@number - unsigned long
>> thanks
>> -Doug

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