Re: [ws-tx] Re: Groups - New Action Item #0057 Review use of RFC 2119keywords ...

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Andrew and Ram,
Can you please include this in the resolution proposed for #102? Thanks.

>Andrew Wilkinson3 wrote: Thanks Joe.
>
>If the TC has no objections I'll correct this as an editorial change as 
>part of the resolution to issue 102.
>
>Your e-mail has also alerted me to an error in the diagram in section 
>3.3.3 where the diagram labels the dotted-arrow events as being initiator 
>generated whereas they are actually participant generated. Again, if there 
>are no objections I think that this should also be corrected as part of 
>the resolution to i102.
>
>Thanks again,
>Andy
>
>...fialli: Andy,
>
>In reviewing the changes in Section 3.2 "Completion Protocol" , I 
>noticed that "participant" on lines 193 and 196 should be "initator".
>In the diagram, "commit" and "rollback" are  "initator" generated 
>event.  While the initiator
>is generically a participant, it would best to use same terminology in 
>both the diagram and prose describing the diagram.
>
>191 The coordinator accepts:
>192 Commit
>193 Upon receipt of this notification, the coordinator knows that the 
>participant has completed
>194 application processing and that it SHOULD attempt to commit the 
>transaction.
>195 Rollback
>196 Upon receipt of this notification, the coordinator knows that the 
>participant has terminated
>197 application processing and that it MUST abort the transaction.
>198 The initiator accepts:
>199 Committed
>200 Upon receipt of this notification, the initiator knows that the 
>coordinator reached a decision to
>201 commit.
>202 Aborted
>203 Upon receipt of this notification, the initiator knows that the 
>coordinator reached a decision to
>204 abort.
>
>-Joe
>  
>