Re: [ws-rx] i0019 - a formal proposal - take 4

[Doug Bunting <Doug.Bunting@Sun.COM>]

Doug,

A few smaller, potentially editorial questions:

On 01/09/05 06:41, Doug Davis wrote:
...

>  In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a
>  sequence it may choose to 'close' the sequence itself.  In cases where
>  the RM Destination wishes to generate a Fault but still allow RM 
>protocol 
>  messages (for example, AckRequested) but not allow any new application 
>  messages to be processed it may use the SequenceClosed Fault in place of 
>the
>  SequenceTerminated fault.  Since the SequenceTerminated fault may
>  result in the state information about the sequence to be reclaimed,
>  use of the SequenceClosed fault will allow the RM Source to still
>  retrieve a final and accurate accounting of the state of the sequence.
>  
>
I find the above fairly difficult to parse.  The choices I see for the 
RMD are to send a <SequenceAcknowledgement/> containing <Final/> or to 
issue a Sequence Closed fault.  The first choice is not covered above.  
The second choice is covered but might be more clear without repeating 
text from elsewhere.  How about:

    In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a
    sequence it may 'close' the sequence itself.  Please see wsrm:Final
    above and the Sequence Closed fault below.

>  When a Sequence is closed and there are messages at the RM Destination   
>
>  that are waiting for lower-numbered messages to arrive (such as the   
>  case when InOrder and ExactlyOnce delivery assurance is being enforced)  
>
>  before they can be delivered to the RM Destination's application, the RM 
> 
>  Destination MUST NOT deliver those messages.
>  
>
The above seems untestable and invisible on the wire.  It also applies 
MUSTs to the RMD to AD interface which go much further than the rest of 
the WS-RM specification, potentially to the detriment of the DA ("almost 
perfect in-order with warnings" anyone?).  A RMD implementation which 
delivers all messages to the AD but clearly identifies the existence of 
gaps should be allowed.  I recommend deleting this paragraph.

>  The following exemplar defines the <wsrm:Closed> syntax:   
>
>  /wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse
>
I hope you mean <wsrm:CloseSequenceResponse> on the line above.

thanx,
    doug