Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue 140

yea, but you removed all of the text
about what the max number is - and I liked that being part of the core
of the spec.

-Doug

Anish Karmarkar <>

07/27/2006 04:09 PM

To

Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS

cc



Subject

Re: [ws-rx] proposal to address issue
140

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]

>