[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue 106 addendum to proposal:
After noodling[1] some more, the following is offered as an addendum to
the jointly noodled proposal[2] posted by Chris Ferris earlier. The earlier part of the proposal responds to the need to eliminate “delivery”
and “guarantee” words in th specification. The term “transferred”
had been used instead which more accurately reflects the spirit of the
normative specification. This addendum addresses the issue raised by claims in the specification
introduction that claims that at the end of a sequence the ending status is “beyond
all doubt”. The idea behind this addendum is to make possible the communication of RMD
behavior nuances that change the potential interpretation of the
sequenceacknowledgement/final ranges by the rms. Note that there is no
discussion of delivery, delivery guarantee or any other forms of assurances.
This is deliberate. There is no change in the wire protocol other than
the RMD to RMS transfer of these informational behavioral element values.
The consequences to test are only that the RMS must be able to consume these
elements. Thanks -bob Pseudo-schema (changes in bold):
A value of “DiscardEntireSequence” indicates
that the entire sequence will be discarded by the RMD if the sequence is closed
when there are one or more gaps in the SequenceAcknowledgement/Final. A value of “DiscardFollowingFirstGap” indicates
that messages in the sequence beyond the first gap will be discarded by the RMD
when there are one or more gaps in the SequenceAcknowledgement/Final. The default value of “NoDiscard” indicates that
no acknowledged messages in the sequence will be discarded by the RMD.
[2] http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200604/msg00031.html
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]