You are right. I
marked too many as done on the last update of the issue list, I’ll roll
96 back to pending. If we are going to close on this issue, it seems that the
editors need to produce a new WD with the resolution to 96 applied so that we
can properly review this.
From: Matthew Lovett
[mailto:MLOVETT@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2006 8:55
AM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] More on i113
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
>
>