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

My understanding of invalid ack is that the RMD has acknowledged messages that the RMS does not think it has sent, or is otherwise fubar.

There is not enough information in the fault for the RMD to discern exactly what was wrong with it, so it is in possession of an invalid sequence that is different from the state of the sequence as perceived by the RMS and is not repairable in any protocol defined manner.

This comes close to an unrecoverable situation. 

Is the sequence useful any more?  I suggest that the consequence is that the sequence is dead.  Continuation without repair fails to achieve a reliable transfer.  There is also the possibility of an ack/fault loop.


As for sequence closed, closure is fine with me as long as it says that to be the case.  I am chagrinned in that I assumed it to be the case when working on the state tables but cannot find that in text.






From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2006 11:21 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]