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