Re: [ws-rx] PR Issue 22: concrete proposal

[Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>]

Gil,

The proposed text starting on line 564
makes the false assumption that messages are transmitted in MessageNumber
order.
I don't think that this is necessarily
a safe assumption. I think that it could also be misinterpreted to mean
the 
last transmitted Sequence Traffic Message
as opposed to the one with the highest MessageNumber (note that
a retransmission, even in the case where
the messages are initially transmitted in order, could be the last one
transmitted). Finally, the text you
had proposed is not explicit as to WHICH Sequence this all applies... Clearly,
you
meant to indicate that this applies
to the Sequence being terminated. 

I would propose that that text starting
on line 564 be modified as follows:

In order to allow the RM Destination to determine
if it has received all of the 
messages in a Sequence, the RM Source includes a LastMsgNumber
element in the 
TerminateSequence message. The LastMsgNumber element
specifies the highest message 
number of all Sequence Traffic Messages for the particular
Sequence being terminated. The RM Destination can use this information,
for example, to implement the
behavior indicated by /wsrm:CreateSequenceResponse/wsrm:IncompleteSequenceBehavior.

Also, starting on line 588, the same
issue applies. Suggest replacing with the following text:

The RM Source MUST include this element
in any TerminateSequence messages it sends. The RM
Source MUST set the value of this element
to the highest MessageNumber of any Sequence Traffic Message
for the Sequence identified in this
TerminateSequence message.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris
phone: +1 508 377 9295

"Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com> wrote
on 10/26/2006 03:48:57 PM:

> Attached is a proposal for PR i022 in the form of a diff against CD-04.
> The main points are:
> 
> 1.) wsrm:TerminateSequence has been expanded to include a mandatory
> LastMsgNumber element the value of which is, surprisingly enough,
the
> number of the last message in the Sequence.
> 
> 2.) Sending wsrm:TerminateSequence is now mandatory; basically the
whole
> thing won't hold together unless the RMS is required to send a
> wsrm:TerminateSequence.
> 
>  <<wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf>> 
> [attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-pr-i022.pdf" deleted by Christopher
B 
> Ferris/Waltham/IBM]