OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsn message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsn] Open issues concerning ordering and interleaving.


Steve Graham wrote:

Hi David:

David Hull <dmh@tibco.com> wrote on 01/13/2005 11:55:19 AM:

> For simplicity, assume there are only two topics in the world, topic A and topic B,
> and that a topic expression may specify any combination of them.  Events are
> generated in a given order, and we should at least guarantee that, for a given
> topic, the NP submits events for delivery in the order in which they were
> generated.  The issues here concern whether we should have policy utterances to
> describe stronger guarantees.
>
> Suppose that topic A carries notifications A1, A2 and A3, and similarly topic A
> carries notifications B1, B2 and B3.  At the very least, we guarantee that A1 will
> arrive before A2, etc.

Is there indeed such a guarantee?  How can we make this guarantee, independent of
certain assumptions of QOS in the transport?
Sorry, I should have said "be submitted for delivery" instead of "arrive".

>  The first issue is what to do if there is some inherent ordering
> across these event streams.  E.g., each carries a timestamp from an external
> reference clock.

Or, perhaps a simpler, monotonically increasing sequence number on the notificaiton
messages?

>  In this case, A1 might be marked as occurring before (or after)
> event B1, and the "correct" order of notifications might be [A1, B1, B2, A2, A3,
> B3].  Should we provide a way of flagging these situations, or should we leave that
> as application dependent.

My choice would be to leave this as application dependent.  There may be some naturally
occurring sequence number (CBE, for example, has naturally occuring creation time attribute).
So in some cases the NP would be obligated to submit in sequence order, and in some cases not?  Would this be  advertised?

>
> The second issue comes up when there is no externally-defined ordering across
> topics.  Should the NP impose one?

IMO, no.  Again, leave the application to define this.  CBE will have timestamp, I am
not keen on making the WSN specs more complicated.
Again, I think the only WSN issue is should the NP be able to advertise that this sort of thing is going on, and if so, how.



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]