[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Comments on Issue 66
Description from Issue 66 states: " The LastMessage element, as part of a Sequence header element, appears superfluous. It seems to serve 2 purposes: 1 - force a SeqAck to be sent back from the RMD 2 - force the RMD to reject any messages with a higher message # #1 can be done with an AckReq header. We should avoid having multiple ways to do the same thing. #2 is really only an issue if someone tries to hijack the sequence - and to protect against that we should be using a real security mechanism like WS-SC/Trust, not the LastMessage element. When an RMS is done with a sequence it is free to simply Close or Terminate it (whether or not it has all of the Acks it wants - but normally it will wait) - having an additional message exchange to send a LastMessage is unnecessary " The ws-rm spec wording implies that there is a difference in behaviour (as described in the Hitachi proposed state tables) between the RMD in states "closed" and "lastReceived". The RMD continues to "deliver" retransmitted messages with msgNo less than the last messageId value, when in the last state. The RMD does not deliver any messages when in the closed state. This difference in behaviour is significant. Last is used for orderly shutdown (with no lost messages at time of sequence terminiation). Tom Rutt . -- The key issue here is ---------------------------------------------------- Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; trutt@us.fujitsu.com Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]