More on i113

While working on a more detailed proposal for 113, it appears to me that these tables need a bit more work than I thought.

(Again I see these tables as more than just accessory: they are necessary to nail down corner cases, and are ultimate ref material for developers.)

In addition to items currently in 113, I propose the following – depending on reactions on the mailing list, I would update 113 appropriately:

1- As mentioned before, for each one of the tables, events that may occur fall in two categories:

(a) those generated by the RM component (e.g. RMD generates and sends a Fault) and under full control of the RM component,

(b) those “received” from outside , e.g. RMS gets a Fault message.

for (a) events, it is OK to use “N/A” for the non-relevant states (the RM component has control over generating these events), but we cannot just use “N/A” for (b) events, that the RM component must be prepared to handle in whatever state it is in, even if such events occur when they shouldn’t. We need to tell what is the effect of receiving (b) events in every state (even if most of the times, sate remains the same). Can’t just brush it off with N/A…

2- There are still several TBD values in these tables – some of them are in particular related to the case where, say the RMS, gets a fault like “Seq Closed Fault” or “Seq Terminated Fault”, while RMS has not even closed or terminated the Seq (mostly, a decision from RMD). I assume an RMS should update to “closed” when getting a Seq Closed Fault, even if it has never sent CloseSequence (like it does for termination). This has to appear in the table.

Another case of questionable transition, is the “Elapse Expires duration” event. Should close IMO instead of terminate, as RMS may want to be able to query a final Ack.

3- there are events ( lines) in these tables that actually do not cause any state transition. E.g. in RMS table: “new message”, “retransmit of unack message” , “SeqAck (non final)”, “Nack”. But it seems we are interested in reporting what should the RMS behavior be for these in each current state. I’d suggest to do this outside these state transition tables, e.g. in another table where we consider specific events that do not cause any transition, - but need to tell what should the RMS (RMD) behavior be depending on the state it is in -, (kind of “decision table”).

Jacques

ws-rx message