One reason is that it is written that the
fault is in response to the receipt of a message. If the fault is NOT as a response
to an RMS initiated message and it is simply received by the RMS, what is it to
do?
Our readers would prefer that an explicit
action (rather than an implicit understanding) would clarify the situation.
-bob
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006
12:56 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] issue 84
proposal for rms colums e-h
Bob,
the
fault says:
This fault
is sent by an RM Destination to indicate that the specified sequence has been
closed. This fault
MUST be
generated when an RM Destination is asked to receive a message for a sequence
that is
closed.
repeating...
"to indicate that the specified sequence has been closed". Why
would
adding
"This fault when received by the RMS indicates that the sequence has been
closed by the RMD"
make this
more clear? What assumption could the RMS make aside from "the
sequence has been closed"?
I'm not
necessarily against adding your text I just don't see how it helps to basically
repeat the
same thing twice.
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
wrote on 01/19/2006 03:41:01 PM:
> I feel that WD07 lines 759-761 describes
under what conditions
> Sequence Closed is sent by the RMD, not what
actions must be taken
> by RMS if it is received when RMS believes
that the sequence may notbe closed.
>
Proposal:
> Add
following text after line 761: (ref WD07)
> This
fault when received by the RMS indicates that the sequence has
> been closed by the RMD.