As long as it is made clear what
terminated means.
I presume it means that it just goes away
rather than invokes the sequence termination protocol.
-bob
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:38
PM
To: Marc Goodner
Cc: Bob Freund-Hitachi;
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: i145 - Current
proposal?
I still like my proposed text:
This element, if present, of type xs:duration specifies the
duration of time until the Sequence SHOULD be terminated, relative to its
creation time.
I
don't see the need for a whole new section when fixing just one line of text
seems to do the job.
thanks,
-Doug
"Marc Goodner"
<mgoodner@microsoft.com>
07/20/2006 02:14 PM
|
To
|
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
|
i145 - Current proposal?
|
|
Guys, following
up from my post earlier today on current proposals I realize the proposal 1
for i145 is not current. Reading
the below thread to see where this issue is the discussion seems to have
stopped here. Is there any agreement on this issue? Is there a proposal
available we could consider on today’s call?
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 6:26 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i145 - design: Implications of Sequence
Expiration not specified
The timer started when the sequence is created - or in state table terms, when
we move from "none" state to "created" state. Why
would we need any finer granulatity than that?
Its interesting that you think the lifetime of the Sequence should be longer on
the RMS than the RMD. I would think it would be the other way around.
It seems like it would worse for the RMS to think that a sequence lived
longer than it really did. Stopping early (for the RMS) wouldn't cause
too much pain (at least its in control over why it stopped using the sequence)
but sending a message and finding out that the sequence it wanted to use is no
longer there seems a bit scarier. Did it go away because it expired or
because of some internal error that now required some kind of admin help?
It (the RMS) just doesn't know and it would worry me if it made some kind
of assumption. It would be much safer to have the RMS expire before the
RMD and let the RMS have control over when to stop using a sequence.
re:MakeConnection - I'm no so sure it belongs in the state table at all.
Its more of a transport level thing and doesn't really have 'state' per
say. Either there are messages waiting to be delivered or not - just 2
possible states. Not very exciting :-)
thanks,
-Doug
Doug,
The state table relies on definitions of events to advance from state to state.
It looks pretty bad to say in the RMD state table that the sequence comes to
life at some implementation defined time and that it stays in the none state
until that time occurs. The state transitions are all very black and
white
I know of a community of potential users who are more than a bit concerned
about the security of the protocol. I believe that their opinion would be
to define expires to be fairly tight compared with the expected time for
sequence transmission. Others might feel fine leaving it at PT0S
One aspect of the text I proposed that I like is defining expiry that way
ensures that the Sequence will expire at the RMS at the same time or later than
at the RMD (no fair discussing clock granularity at this juncture). This
provides at least known behavior and supports silent termination. The RMS
can be reasonably assured that it need not be concerned about what is going on
at the RMD.
As for MakeConnection, I have been thinking a bit about its representation.
I am drifting in the direction of defining an underlying “transfer
engine” that would deal with it independently of the sequence state
tables. I think that this also might take care of re-transmissions as
well as the handling of responses which are hard to find in the spec J.
Thanks
-bob
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 12:29 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] i145 - design: Implications of Sequence
Expiration not specified
I had forgotten that I did have a version that fixed the start of the duration,
how about:
This element, if present, of type xs:duration specifies the duration of time
until the Sequence SHOULD be terminated, relative to its creation time.
The termination should probably be silent since we don't have a message for it.
Its not a fault, per say, so I'm not sure SeqTerminated Fault makes
sense.
My concern with the text you've proposed is that it mandates that the sequences
are created at a certain time and I'm not sure we can mandate that. For
example, you say the sequence starts (on the RMD) when the CSR is transmitted.
Is that before or after the MakeConnection is received? I would
prefer before, but the 'transmit' in there may imply something else to others.
I think leaving it as a generic "creation time" is best -
leaves it up to the impl to decide when that time is.
Likewise, as you asked, whether the Offered sequence is 'created' during the
generation of CS or during the processing of the CSR is an RMS detail that we
should not get into.
Overall, I'm not that concerned about the timing of this, and am ok with
leaving it a bit loose, because I don't think this timing is that critical.
If this timing were critical and every millisecond counted then I would
agree with you that we would need to be very precise and need more work in this
area, but I just don't think the expiry/lifetime of a sequence is mission
critical - it just needs to remain available 'as long as' the requested Expires
time - note it doesn't have to commit suicide at that time at all, it just
can't do it before that time.
thanks
-Doug
Doug,
Is that termination silent?
I think that you are correct, a new section is not really necessary.
Do we care what signals the start of that xs:duration?
I think that this may be tied to definition of the sequence lifetime which may
be better defined in Section 3.4 “Sequences”
My suggestion would be to insert in the first paragraph of 3.4, perhaps at the
end, something along the lines of:
“A Sequence exists at the RM Source from the processing of the
wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse until the earlier of the transmission of
wsrm:TerminateSequence or the Sequence expires (see section 3.1). A
Sequence exists at the RM Destination from the transmission of a
wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse until the earlier of the successful processing of a
wsrm:TerminateSequence or the Sequence expires (see Section 3.1).”
Once that is done, then in Section 3.3 “Sequence Termination”
expiration behavior could be stated as something like:
At the end of the first paragraph of 3.3
“Sequence are also implicitly terminated without further exchange of
protocol messages upon the expiration of the Sequence (see Section 3.1)”
Then in Section 3.1 something along the lines of:
Following the paragraph headed by the line:
/wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:Expires the following refining language:
“The Sequence is said to expire when
wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:Expires elapses from either the perspective of
the sender or the receiver of this element”
I am still a bit vague about the usage of the Expires within an Offer.
What does it mean to you?
Thanks
-non
From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 05, 2006 10:38 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] i145 - design: Implications of Sequence Expiration
not specified
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200606/msg00216.html
Bob,
I think we can resolve this issue with a much smaller change - instead of
creating an entire new section why not just modify the description of the
Expires element like this:
This element, if present, of type xs:duration specified the duration of time
until the Sequence SHOULD be terminated.
It will need to be modified slightly based on the exact usage but you get the
idea.
thanks
-Doug