[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
Yeah I was struggling with that. I agree. Proposal (stolen from Gil and Sanjay): Change line 230 to read: "While the Sequence is not closed or terminated, the following invariants are REQUIRED for correctness:" Then add new bullet to be inserted after line 238 to read: "The RMS MUST retransmit unacknowledged messages". Paul Doug Davis wrote: > > 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 > > > > > > > -- 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]