Ah, sorry I missed the <> in the
legend. Shouldn't AckReq be in <> then ?
re:InvalidAck [msg] - but isn't this
an incoming msg? When an InvalidAck msg comes in you think it should
generate an InvalidAck msg?
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<>
07/06/2006 04:11 PM
To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, "Bob
Freund-Hitachi" <>
cc
"[WS-RX]" <>
Subject
RE: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version
and diffs from June 29 version
Comments in-line:
From: Doug Davis [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, July 06, 2006 3:57 PM
To: Bob Freund-Hitachi
Cc: [WS-RX]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version and diffs from June
29 version
More comments on the state tables:
RMS Table:
Why does "<CloseSequence>" have the <>'s?
Because it is optional per
Section 3.2
In the SeqAck(final) [msg] row, I think you just can just "Process
Ack" not "Process Ack/Nack" since a final Ack can't contain
a Nack.
You are correct as much as
it irks me.
InvalidAck [msg] row, I'm not sure they would generate an InvalidAckFault
since that seems to imply they may be sent in response to this msg, I
think an 'No action' is more consistent with you other cells.
No, Spec says the fault happens
(see Sec 4.4)
Event occurs upon the receipt
of the RMS of an invalid acknowledgement range
RMD Table:
CloseSequence autonomously and SeqAck autonomously have <>'s
They are both optional.
Still don't get the differ between N/A and blank. :-)
Blank means we don’t say anything
about the combo. N/A says we would be daft if we tried
thanks,
-Doug
"Bob Freund-Hitachi"
<>
07/05/2006 06:02 PM
To
"[WS-RX]" <>
cc
Subject
[ws-rx] State tables, July 5 version
and diffs from June 29 version
Changes state names from connecting/connected to creating/created
Changes xmit faults to generate failts
Other minor references[attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-ith-ST-Edits2006-07-05.doc"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM] [attachment "wsrm-1.1-spec-wd-15-ith-ST-Edits2006-07-05-diffs.doc"
deleted by Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM]
