ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: "Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 19:38:59 -0500
Well, since Acks can be received out
of order I don't think you want to say "most recent".
I think sticking with just talking about
"unacked" messages is safer.
thanks,
-Doug
"Gilbert Pilz"
<Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>
11/02/2006 07:35 PM
|
To
| "Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>,
<ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
|
cc
|
|
Subject
| RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission |
|
May I suggest ammending your proposal in the following
way:
Change line 230 to read:
"While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the following
invariants are REQUIRED for correctness:"
Then change the new bullet to be inserted after line 238 to read:
"The RMS MUST retransmit any messages that are missing from the most
recent Acknowledgement Message".
- gp
" . . and nice red uniforms."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 3:40 PM
> To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
>
> We do not normatively state that any messages must be
> retransmitted unless the server Nacks them.
>
> Since the Protocol Invariants are there to explain how we
> actually ensure reliable transmission, that is the
> appropriate place to add this.
>
> Proposal:
>
> Add a new invariant:
> While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the RMS must
> retransmit any messages that are missing from the most recent
> acknowledgement message.
>
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject:
[ws-rx] Potential new issue: retransmission
> Date:
Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:22:25 +0000
> From:
Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>
> Organisation:
WSO2
> To:
ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
>
>
>
> While looking at PR016, I could only find three places where we
> normatively define retransmission:
>
> 1. Upon receipt of a NACK, you must retransmit that message
> 2. Upon MessageNumberRollover, you must continue to
> retransmit messages
> 3. In the state tables, we have a state corresponding to this.
>
> Given that NACK is optional, MessageNumberRollover highly unlikely,
> doesn't seem like we've defined this very well!
>
> How about adding as a protocol invariant that the RMS must retransmit
> unacknowledged messages?
>
> Paul
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Paul Fremantle
> VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2
> OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair
>
> http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle
> paul@wso2.com
> (646) 290 8050
>
> "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
>
>
>
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]