[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: retransmission
Doug I like Gil's suggestion because the "lifetime" isn't defined. If you are really concerned then we need different invariants for pre-close and pre-terminate I guess. Paul Doug Davis wrote: > > I think the new bullet is ok - but since Acks can be sent even after > the Sequence is closed I think the change to line 230 is a bit > misleading. Perhaps the original text for that is still ok? > -Doug > > > > *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>* > > 11/03/2006 03:12 AM > > > To > Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS > cc > "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>, Gilbert Pilz > <Gilbert.Pilz@bea.com>, ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org > 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 > > > -- 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]