[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Proposal for i021
The high-level view is that it would be nice to restrict the piggybacking of acks to situations where we are sure that there is an RM agent at the other end. Replace the beginning of section 3.9 with the following: The RM Destination informs the RM Source of successful message receipt using a SequenceAcknowledgement header block. The RM Destination MAY Transmit the SequenceAcknowledgement header block independently or it MAY include the SequenceAcknowledgement header block on existing messages targeted to the AcksTo EPR. When the SequenceAcknowledgement header block is included on existing messages, this is known as piggybacking. Piggybacking MAY occur in two cases: * The first case is where the SequenceAcknowledgement header block is piggybacked onto a reply to a Sequence Traffic Message. In this case the SequenceAcknowledgement must apply to the same Sequence as the SequenceTrafficMessage. The definition of reply used is that defined by the WS-Addressing relationship URI "http://www.w3.org/2005/08/addressing/reply". * The second case is where the existing message is a Sequence Traffic Message. In this case the Sequence of the Sequence Traffic Message does not need to be the same as the Sequence of the SequenceAcknowledgement header block. Piggybacking MUST not occur unless one or both of these cases apply. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]