RE: [ws-rx] More on i113

[Matthew Lovett <MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com>]

No, that issue wasn't on the list of
resolved issues that Gil produced with WD12. Unfortunately the latest issues
list has marked it 'done' rather than 'pending' - have you swept up too
many issues in your most recent list?

Thanks

Matt


"Marc Goodner" <mgoodner@microsoft.com>
wrote on 04/05/2006 16:43:05:

> So are those tables reflected in WD12? I thought they were.
> 
> Marc Goodner
> Technical Diplomat
> Microsoft Corporation
> Tel: (425) 703-1903
> Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Rutt [mailto:tom@coastin.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 5:01 AM
> To: Durand, Jacques R.
> Cc: Marc Goodner; Matthew Lovett; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-rx] More on i113
> 
> Durand, Jacques R. wrote:
> 
> > Mmmh... I have been using the latest source provided to me by
Matt 
> > Lovett I believe.
> >
> the latest state tables, to my knowledge, are in 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/email/archives/200604
> /msg00011.html 
> 
> Tom Rutt
> 
> > Looking quickly at WD12 pdf, the tables are pretty much the same
as 
> > what I started from - actually even more undetermined (still
many "?")
> >
> > So the changes I proposed (in red in the RTF) depart indeed enough
> > from the source tables to make it hard to identify the original
;-)
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 02, 2006 5:14 PM
> > *To:* Durand, Jacques R.; Matthew Lovett
> > *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] More on i113
> >
> > Actually, I'm looking at this now and it looks like it is using
an old
> 
> > version of the state table. I can't line this up against what
is in 
> > WD12 at all.
> >
> > Marc Goodner
> >
> > Technical Diplomat
> >
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> >
> > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Marc Goodner [mailto:mgoodner@microsoft.com]
> > *Sent:* Tuesday, May 02, 2006 3:30 PM
> > *To:* Durand, Jacques R.; Matthew Lovett
> > *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] More on i113
> >
> > Jacques,
> >
> > Is this document the proposed updates you note below?
> >
> > View Document Details:
> >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/document.php?document
> _id=17864
> >
> > Download Document:
> >
> >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/17864/st
> ate-tables-JD-3-diffs.rtf
> >
> > Marc Goodner
> >
> > Technical Diplomat
> >
> > Microsoft Corporation
> >
> > Tel: (425) 703-1903
> >
> > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Durand, Jacques R. [mailto:JDurand@us.fujitsu.com]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2006 1:02 PM
> > *To:* Matthew Lovett
> > *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* RE: [ws-rx] More on i113
> >
> > Matt:
> >
> > Most proposed updates (except some in my #2) still apply to your
> > latest tables - will propose a sample of updated tables.
> >
> > Also propose the following:
> >
> > - to not " Fault a Fault", e.g. if RMS receives a Message
Rollover 
> > Fault for an unknown sequence,
> >
> > it will not complain back with "Unknown Sequence Fault".
> >
> > - When sequence expires: propose it closes rather than terminates:
one
> 
> > must still be able to query
> >
> > it to get a final Ack.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Jacques
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > *From:* Matthew Lovett [mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com]
> > *Sent:* Wednesday, April 26, 2006 2:20 AM
> > *To:* Durand, Jacques R.
> > *Cc:* ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [ws-rx] More on i113
> >
> >
> > Hi Jacques,
> >
> > Which version of the tables are you working from? Issue i096
was 
> > recently accepted by the TC, and includes an updated PDF for
the 
> > tables. Unfortunately this issue hasn't been folded into the
current 
> > working draft.... so you should probably describe your changes
> > relative to i096 for now. My note to the TC that contained the
> > proposal for i096 contains both a PDF and the original open office
> > doc, so it should be quite easy to produce an annotated doc from
> there.
> >
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200604/msg00011.html
> >
> > Thanks
> >
> > Matt
> >
> >
> > "Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
wrote on 26/04/2006 
> > 04:15:10:
> >
> >> 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Tom Rutt   email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com
> Tel: +1 732 801 5744          Fax: +1 732
774 5133
> 
>