Title: Message
Hi
Doug,
I went
back and forth on that one myself for a little while. I prefer MUST too, but
there appeared to be some push back on this during the initial discussion so I
stuck with SHOULD. Your rationale makes sense to me though and I would be
fine (even happy) to use MUST. Let's see what the group thinks on the call
on Thursday.
Cheers,
Steve
-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Davis
[mailto:]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2005 6:37
AM
To:
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] NEW
ISSUE - No indication of how to process NACKs in normal
case
Steve,
+1 - although I'd prefer it to be a
MUST to be consistent with the text for AckRequested - but since its really up
to the RMS to determine when to do it anyway its not a huge thing.
thanks
-Doug
"Winkler, Steve"
<>
09/06/2005 02:54 PM
To
<>
cc
Subject
[ws-rx] NEW ISSUE - No
indication of how to process NACKs in normal
case
All,
Here's a description of the new issue I wanted to
raise from the discussion of the related issue i005 [1].
Title: Processing model of NACKs
Description: Although it is assumed that a NACK
will trigger retransmission of a given message from the source to the
destination there is no wording in the current version of the spec that
describes this feature adequately.
Justification: This will clarify to implementers
the spriit of the spec by spelling out in more concrete terms what is
currently only implied.
Target: Core
Type: Design
Proposal:
Add the following to the spec directly before the
text that is incorporated as a resolution to i005:
Upon the receipt of a Nack, an RM Source SHOULD
retransmit the message identified by the Nack as soon as possible.
Cheers,
Steve
[1] http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/ws-rx/200508/msg00272.html
---------------------------
Steve Winkler
SAP AG
