[OASIS Issue Tracker] (MQTT-439) Issues from Boris Verkhovykh

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

Ken Borgendale created MQTT-439:
-----------------------------------

             Summary: Issues from Boris Verkhovykh
                 Key: MQTT-439
                 URL: https://issues.oasis-open.org/browse/MQTT-439
             Project: OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: edits
    Affects Versions: 5, wd13
            Reporter: Ken Borgendale
            Assignee: Ken Borgendale
            Priority: Minor


1.
1775   If the value of Retain As Published subscription option is set to 0, the Server MUST set the RETAIN
1776 flag to 0 when forwarding an Application Message regardless of how the RETAIN flag was set in the
1777 received PUBLISH packet [MQTT-3.3.1-12].
1778   If the value of Retain As Published subscription option is set to 1, the Server MUST set the RETAIN
1779 flag equal to the RETAIN flag in the received PUBLISH packet [MQTT-3.3.1-13].

And it appears that [MQTT-3.3.1-12] (RaP bit == 0) contradicts the last sentence from the following chapter:

2332 3.8.3.1 Subscription Options
...
2341 Bit 3 of the Subscription Options represents the Retain As Published option. If 1, Application Messages
2342 forwarded using this subscription keep the RETAIN flag they were published with. If 0, the RETAIN flag in
2343 the PUBLISH packet indicates whether it came from a retained source or is a new publication.

Or, is it different functionality for bridging? Then it should be articulated more the clearly.

2.
2332 3.8.3.1 Subscription Options
...
2337 Bit 2 of the Subscription Options represents the No Local option. If the value is 1, Application Messages
2338 MUST NOT be forwarded to a connection with a ClientId equal to the ClientId of the publishing
2339 connection [MQTT-3.8.3-3]. It is a Protocol Error to set the No Local bit to 1 on a Shared [MQTT-3.8.3-4].

I guess, the word "Subscription" is missed at the end.

3.
Second, what is the rationale to prohibit the "No Local" option for Shared Subscriptions?
I would see a useful scenario: client asks to pass a message to one of its peers (if they exist), while accepting similar messages from others.
It may help building auto-configurable systems.





--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.2.2#6258)