[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE - No indication of how to process NACKs in normal case
Because this is up to the RMS and is only an optimization the RMD may use a MAY seems more appropriate here than either a SHOULD. A MUST is not acceptable, a SHOULD is. I think Steve's rationale for proposing this as a SHOULD based on previous discussion of this topic was correct. -----Original Message----- From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 9:25 AM To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE - No indication of how to process NACKs in normal case +1 Christopher Ferris STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html phone: +1 508 377 9295 "Winkler, Steve" <steve.winkler@sap.com> wrote on 09/07/2005 12:09:18 PM: > > Hi Doug, > > I went back and forth on that one myself for a little while. I prefer MUST too, but there appeared > to be some push back on this during the initial discussion so I stuck with SHOULD. Your rationale > makes sense to me though and I would be fine (even happy) to use MUST. Let's see what the group > thinks on the call on Thursday. > > Cheers, > Steve > -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:37 AM > To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE - No indication of how to process NACKs in normal case > > Steve, > +1 - although I'd prefer it to be a MUST to be consistent with the text for AckRequested - but > since its really up to the RMS to determine when to do it anyway its not a huge thing. > thanks > -Doug > > > > "Winkler, Steve" <steve.winkler@sap.com> > 09/06/2005 02:54 PM > > To > > <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > > cc > > Subject > > [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE - No indication of how to process NACKs in normal case > > > > All, > Here's a description of the new issue I wanted to raise from the discussion of the related issue i005 [1]. > Title: Processing model of NACKs > Description: Although it is assumed that a NACK will trigger retransmission of a given message > from the source to the destination there is no wording in the current version of the spec that > describes this feature adequately. > Justification: This will clarify to implementers the spriit of the spec by spelling out in more > concrete terms what is currently only implied. > Target: Core > Type: Design > Proposal: > Add the following to the spec directly before the text that is incorporated as a resolution to i005: > Upon the receipt of a Nack, an RM Source SHOULD retransmit the message identified by the Nack as > soon as possible. > Cheers, > Steve > > [1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200508/msg00272.html > > --------------------------- > Steve Winkler > SAP AG
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]