ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version and diffs from June 29 version
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 17:07:36 -0400
Ah, I see, I was confused because of
the'[msg]' - I thought we were generating the fault as a result of receiving
the fault not the ack.
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
07/06/2006 04:59 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Bob
Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
|
cc
| "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>,
"[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version
and diffs from June 29 version |
|
Ok,
I guess that ack req is optional
too given the MAY in the spec.
On the point of InvalidAck[msg]
that is intended to mean an acknowledgment that is invalid, not a fault
message
When the invalid acknowledgement
range occurs , it causes the generation of an Invalid Acknowledgement Fault
see sec 4.4
Thanks
-bob
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 4:26 PM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Cc: Bob Freund-Hitachi; [WS-RX]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version and diffs from June
29 version
Ah, sorry I missed the <> in the legend. Shouldn't AckReq be
in <> then ?
re:InvalidAck [msg] - but isn't this an incoming msg? When an InvalidAck
msg comes in you think it should generate an InvalidAck msg?
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
07/06/2006 04:11 PM
|
To
| Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS,
"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
|
cc
| "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version
and diffs from June 29 version |
|
Comments in-line:
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Cc: [WS-RX]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version and diffs from June
29 version
More comments on the state tables:
RMS Table:
Why does "<CloseSequence>" have the <>'s?
Because it is optional per Section 3.2
In the SeqAck(final) [msg] row, I think you just can just "Process
Ack" not "Process Ack/Nack" since a final Ack can't contain
a Nack.
You are correct as much as it irks me.
InvalidAck [msg] row, I'm not sure they would generate an InvalidAckFault
since that seems to imply they may be sent in response to this msg, I
think an 'No action' is more consistent with you other cells.
No, Spec says the fault happens (see Sec 4.4)
Event occurs upon the receipt of the RMS of an invalid acknowledgement
range
RMD Table:
CloseSequence autonomously and SeqAck autonomously have <>'s
They are both optional.
Still don't get the differ between N/A and blank. :-)
Blank means we don’t say anything about the combo. N/A says we would be
daft if we tried
thanks,
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>
07/05/2006 06:02 PM
|
To
| "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version
and diffs from June 29 version |
|
Changes state names from connecting/connected to creating/created
Changes xmit faults to generate failts
Other minor references[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-ith-ST-Edits2006-07-05.doc"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] [attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-ith-ST-Edits2006-07-05-diffs.doc"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]