RE: [ws-rx] Concrete proposal for PR035

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

I think we are getting close.

I would suggest the following  - mostly editorial - modifications on the DA defs:

ExactlyOnce:
"...Each message is to be delivered exactly once, or else an error MUST be raised by the RM Source and/or RM Destination. "
This could be misleading as the reader might understand that it is OK to deliver duplicates provided that an error is raised... which is not what we had in mind - at least according to the way we handled AtMostOnce DA.  Now, the last sentence of the DA contradicts the idea that duplicates might be delivered, but which one is the reader to believe?. So to dissipate this ambiguity I propose to reword the first sentence as:

"...Each message is to be delivered exactly once, and if the message could not be delivered then an error MUST be raised by the RM Source and/or RM Destination. "

InOrder:

I would avoid any forward reference to the details of the protocol solution that is supposed to help this DA, as specified later on in the spec body- or at least would try to keep away from the XML details and just allude to the mechanism to be used:

propose to replace: (as indicated by its MessageNumber) with: (as indicated by a message sequence number)

propose to replace: in the order indicated by the sequence MessageNumbers with: in the order indicated by the message numbering

One more sugegstion on the InOrder DA again: I think we go too far when we recommend to "delay" delivery of out of order messages in case of InOrder + AtLeastOnce. Reasons are, several options for the ultimate delivery behavior in case of out-of-order messages,  still need be kept open (e.g. as signaled with IncompleteSequenceBehavior), provided that the overall monotonic order is preserved. E.g. in some cases, the out-of-order messages will be discarded, not just delayed.

So instead of:

"...then the RM Destination SHOULD delay delivery of these messages"

we coud say:

"...then the RM Destination SHOULD wait for a reasonable time window before forgoing missing messages"

 

Thanks,

- Jacques

 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Niblett [mailto:peter_niblett@uk.ibm.com]
Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 3:28 PM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] Concrete proposal for PR035


Here are my proposed changes to the WS-RM and WS-RMP specs, consolidating the various input and discussion we had on last week's call

(See attached file: wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-16-PR035.pdf)(See attached file:
wsrmp-1.1-spec-wd-11-PR035.pdf)

All changes are in section 2 of each spec, and they are all additions. I have used Adobe Pop-up annotations to show the new material.

Peter Niblett
IBM Senior Technical Staff Member