New proposed issues 10/20

Please let me (and the list) know if I missed any issues sent to the week in the last week.

Proposed-01

Title: State Transition Table

Proposed-02

Title: Retransmission behavior

Proposed-03

Title: Definition for "Reliable Message"

Proposed-01

Title: State Transition Table

Description:

The current specification has an example of message exchange between two ends. The example represents a subset of possible states that the protocol can transition to. It is left to the reader/implementor to verify all the possible states of the protocol.

Justification:

A full state transition table is needed in order to ensure proper design of the reliable protocol.

Proposal:

To produce such a table.

Proposed-02

Title: Retransmission behavior

Description:

The Core specification depends on message retransmission by the RMS of unacknowledged messages in order for a reliable exchange to be accomplished, yet does not describe this behavior in any way. Discuss and conclude the manner and the location for such an exposition in the core specification.

Proposed-03

Title: Definition for "Reliable Message"

Description: there are several references to "reliable message" (section 1, 2 intro, 2.1, 2.3) that are not backed by a clear definition.

Justification: Terminology section is defining key concepts, yet does not explain what a reliable message is (and now other definitions are also referencing "reliable message"). The main requirement of inclusion of a wsrm:Sequence element which could back an intuitive definition, is not currently related to this expression at all, (related to DA instead) which is confusing.

Target: core

Type: editorial

Proposal:

1- Add a terminology entry. It could be:

Reliable message: a message submitted by the Application Source to an RM Source via the "Send" operation,

for transmission over the protocol defined in this specification.

2- In 3.1: associate the main protocol requirement (Sequence element) with the definition of "reliable message" instead of with a vague requirement of being subject to some DA:

Replace:

"Messages for which the delivery assurance applies MUST contain a <wsrm:Sequence> header block."

With:

"Reliable Messages MUST contain a <wsrm:Sequence> header block."

(DA and protocol being in fact separately defined, DA should now more abstractly mandate the use of "reliable messages" if we still want to pre-req one to the other.)

ws-rx message