I was trying to not say the same thing twice -- potential for
inconsistency as we go forward and make other changes to the spec before
it is final. So I have a pointer in section 3.4 to the right fault.
-Anish
--
Doug Davis wrote:
>
> Anish,
> Ah, so you meant to erase the text around message # rollover fault
> (sec 3.4). I think we should keep it there even though its a dup of
> what's in section 4.
> -Doug
>
>
>
> *Anish Karmarkar <>*
>
> 07/27/2006 03:01 PM
>
>
> To
> Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc
> Bob Freund-Hitachi <>, "[WS-RX]"
> <>
> Subject
> Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Doug Davis wrote:
> >
> > 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).
>
> Yes, I see your point about seq spoofing. Agree.
>
> > for seqClosed - I don't think the "action upon receipt" should be to
> > terminate - I think 'close' would be more appropriate.
> >
>
> Makes sense.
>
> > 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?
> >
>
> Not sure which changes you are talking about.
> The only changes are in section 4 and in section 3.4.
> Note that the PDF uses WD-15 as the base.
>
> > -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]
>
