OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

ws-rx message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

+1 for InvalidAck.

The behavior on reception of such an error could be configurable based on some policy (out of scope).

This error should actually cover more than just the “cumulative ack invariants” (which I assume are those stated in 2.3 Protocol invariants)

“Reason” should be: violate the invariants stated in 2.3 OR  any of the requirements in 3.6 about valid combinations of AckRange, Nack and None in a single SequenceAcknowledgement element or w/r to already received such elements.


For SequenceClosed:


Upon Receipt, the RMS should close on its side . Do NOT terminate: It could be that the seq was closed by RMD but the RMS did not get the notice, in which case it still wants a chance to get the final ack.



From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:21 AM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Cc: [WS-RX]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140


  for InvalidAck - should it really close the sequence?  Since Acks are just informational I'm not so sure they should initiate the closing down of a sequence even when they have bad data - I'd prefer to let the receiver of the InvalidAck fault make that decision for itself ( see 5.1.3).
  for seqClosed - I don't think the "action upon receipt" should be to terminate - I think 'close' would be more appropriate.

btw - there were changes to the expires text in the pdf - I'm assuming those were left over from other other work and not related to this, right?


"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>

07/27/2006 05:59 AM


"[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>




[ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140




Anish has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal to address issue 140.
While preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which we enumerate below:
Sequence Terminated Fault:
There is no text that details under what conditions a sequence terminated fault might be raised other than mention of a vague “protocol error”.
One way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in section 4, however it is more concise to represent these in the state tables of appendix D were normative.
Unsupported Selection
This fault description deserves elucidation
-bob[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-issue140.pdf" deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]