Durand, Jacques R. wrote:
> +1 for InvalidAck.
>
> The behavior on reception of such an error could be configurable based
> on some policy (out of scope).
>
> This error should actually cover more than just the “cumulative ack
> invariants” (which I assume are those stated in 2.3 Protocol invariants)
>
> “Reason” should be: violate the invariants stated in 2.3 OR any of the
> requirements in 3.6 about valid combinations of AckRange, Nack and None
> in a single SequenceAcknowledgement element or w/r to already received
> such elements.
>
I think it makes sense to include that.
>
>
> For SequenceClosed:
>
>
>
> Upon Receipt, the RMS should close on its side . Do NOT terminate: It
> could be that the seq was closed by RMD but the RMS did not get the
> notice, in which case it still wants a chance to get the final ack.
>
Right, I agree.
>
>
> Jacques
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:* Doug Davis [mailto:]
> *Sent:* Thursday, July 27, 2006 8:21 AM
> *To:* Bob Freund-Hitachi
> *Cc:* [WS-RX]
> *Subject:* Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
>
>
>
>
> Bob,
> for InvalidAck - should it really close the sequence? Since Acks are
> just informational I'm not so sure they should initiate the closing down
> of a sequence even when they have bad data - I'd prefer to let the
> receiver of the InvalidAck fault make that decision for itself ( see
> 5.1.3).
> for seqClosed - I don't think the "action upon receipt" should be to
> terminate - I think 'close' would be more appropriate.
>
> btw - there were changes to the expires text in the pdf - I'm assuming
> those were left over from other other work and not related to this, right?
>
> -Doug
>
>
> *"Bob Freund-Hitachi" <>*
>
> 07/27/2006 05:59 AM
>
>
>
> To
>
>
>
> "[WS-RX]" <>
>
> cc
>
>
>
>
>
> Subject
>
>
>
> [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Anish has been kind enough to prepare the attached draft proposal to
> address issue 140.
>
> While preparing this draft, some additional points were raised which we
> enumerate below:
>
> Sequence Terminated Fault:
> There is no text that details under what conditions a sequence
> terminated fault might be raised other than mention of a vague “protocol
> error”.
> One way to address this is to list some or all of the conditions in
> section 4, however it is more concise to represent these in the state
> tables of appendix D were normative.
>
> Unsupported Selection
> This fault description deserves elucidation
>
> Thanks
> -bob[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-issue140.pdf" deleted by Doug
> Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
>
