Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i140 - Add new sub-headings to each fault described insection 4.
It is probably needs not very much change; more of a reorganization really.
Since the state tables are non-normative, all normative behavior ought to be contained in the normative text. I am beginning to think that the main objection I have is that the description of fault origins and behavior are divided between the fault section and Section 3. I would prefer that faults be discussed in one place or the other. For example, the implications of the Sequence Closed fault is described redundantly in Section 3 and Section 4 whereas Invalid Acknowledgement is described only in Section 4 with only an admonishment in Section 3 that ack ranges SHOULD not overlap,
If Section 4 contained only the description of fault detail elements and the faults were all completely described elsewhere I would be happy, but there are faults described only in Section 4 which actually do not seem to fit well into the “document” oriented Section 3.
It would be far preferable IMO to describe the fault completely in Section 4 and in Section 3 to mention merely that a fault be generated and to point to Section 4 for the description.
If there are cases where there are “too many variables” to describe the meaning of a fault to endpoint then I have deeper concerns.
From: Doug Davis