RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission

[Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>]

Paul - your latest version:
>"The RMS MUST retransmit any messages that
are unacknowledged in any 
>received SequenceAcknowledgement messages".
can be read to impl that if I get an
Ack for 1,3 and then an Ack for 1,2,3 I MUST still send
message 2 because of the 2nd "any".
I agree with Sanjay, I think the simpler
sentence actually covers it better.

thanks,
-Doug

"Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>

11/02/2006 07:52 PM

To	"Paul Fremantle" <paul@wso2.com>, Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	"Gilbert Pilz" <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission

Paul,

I thought your very first suggestion was simpler and sufficient --
"The RMS MUST retransmit unacknowledged messages".

Why do we need to say more? Isn't receiving SeqAck the only way to
confirm acks?

-- Sanjay

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Paul Fremantle [mailto:paul@wso2.com] 
>Sent: Thursday, Nov 02, 2006 16:46 PM
>To: Doug Davis
>Cc: Gilbert Pilz; ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
>
>Ah good point.
>
>I was trying to distinguish between positively unacked 
>messages (I have 
>an ack but it doesn't include message 3) and the situation where I
>haven't yet got an ack.
>
>Is this any better?
>"The RMS MUST retransmit any messages that are unacknowledged
in any 
>received SequenceAcknowledgement messages".
>
>Paul
>
>Doug Davis wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>-- 
>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
>
>
>