[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Proposed NEW ISSUE: Alignment and Refinement of Definitions forDelivery Assurances
Tom,
In ALL cases, the obligation on the RMS is the same. Below, you claim that
for AtMostOnce,
there are no obligations on the RMS which is not the case.
I fail to see why you wish to characterize AtMostOnce in the terms below.
It merely means that
the RMD might not, for a variety of unspecified reasons, not deliver a
received message to the AD.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I thought that the TC had come to consensus agreement that the protocol
operated the way it
is described in the resolution to i020[1]. Why is it then that you write:
The delivery assurance ?at most once?, as defined in WS-rm spc, seems
out of place. If the ws-rm spec is going to allow for ?best effort
Delivery? as a conformant behaviour contract for an RMD under special
circumstances, why is it only allowed in combination with Guaranteed
receipt and Duplicate Elimination reliability functions?
Whether or not the definition of AtMostOnce seems out of place or not is
irrelevant. It is merely important
to make it clear that the protocol operates consistently regardless of DA,
and that DA is exclusively a
function of the contract between the RMD and AD in terms of the level of
assurance that a received message
will, or will not, be (eventually) delivered.
Cheers,
Christopher Ferris
STSM, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://webpages.charter.net/chrisfer/blog.html
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Tom Rutt <tom@coastin.com>
09/28/2005 01:49 PM
Please respond to
tom
To
tom@coastin.com
cc
wsrx <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
Re: [ws-rx] Proposed NEW ISSUE: Alignment and Refinement of Definitions
for Delivery Assurances
Tom Rutt wrote:
>
> NEW ISSUE ? Alignment and Refinement of Definitions for Delivery
> Assurances
>
The previous email has a mistake in the two tables, in that there is no
need for a "hold for prior" column.
The complete new issue proposal, with the fix,::
-------
NEW ISSUE ? Alignment and Refinement of Definitions for Delivery
Assurances
Description:
I took an action Item to align the Delivery Assurance definition text in
the body document with the resolution of Issue 009.
Justification:
The resolution of Issue 009 is documented at:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ws-rx/download.php/14682/ReliableMessagingIssues.xml#i009
:
It is best if the Delivery assurances are defined in only one place in
the document.
The definition of Delivery assurances is simplified by introducing the
concept of Reliability Functions.
Proposals:
The proposal to resolve this ISSUE is presented in Three Steps.
Step 1) of Proposed Resoluton: Change the use of in line definitions in
the proposal for Issue 009 to references to the definitions in section
Resulting text for Proposal for Issue 009:
?
<wsrm:DeliveryAssertion mode="[AtLeastOnce|AtMostOnce|ExactlyOnce]"
ordered="[xs:boolean]"? ...="" >
/wsrm:DeliveryAssertion
A policy assertion that makes a claim as to the delivery assurance
policy
observed by the destination endpoint.
/wsrm:DeliveryAssertion/@mode
This required attribute specifies which delivery assurance is
asserted.
A value of 'AtMostOnce' means that the Delivery Assurance ?at Most
Once,
defined in section xxx, is asserted.
A value of 'AtLeastOnce' means that the Delivery Assurance ?At Least
Once?,
defined in section xxx, is asserted..
A value of 'ExactlyOnce' means that the Delivery Assurance ?Exactly
Once?,
defined in section xxx, is asserted.
/wsrm:DeliveryAssertion/@ordered
This attribute, of type xs:boolean, specifies whether, or not, the
?in order? reliability function defined in section xxx is asserted. .
A value of 'true' asserts that the ?in order? reliability
function is required.
A value of 'false' asserts that the ?in order? reliability function
is not required.
If omitted, the default implied value is 'false'.
?
Step 2) of Proposed Resolution: Clarify Definitions of Delivery
assurances, using concept of reliability functions
The term ?Delivery assurance? is used to refer to a set of engaged
reliability functions associated with a Reliable Messaging Sequence.
Fundamental Reliability Functions:
? Guaranteed Receipt:
o RM-Source must buffer the message, to allow for potential
re-transmission, until an acknowledgement is received from the
RM-Destination for that message.
o RM-Destination must return an acknowledgment upon successful
receipt of the message.
? Duplicate Elimination:
o No obligations on RM-Source.
o RM-Destination must not deliver to application destination any
message which has the same ID as a previously delivered message.
In addition, to allow the definition of Delivery assurance ?at most
once?, as in the resolution of Issue xx, the following ?reliability
function? is defined
? Best Effort Delivery
o No obligations on RM-Source
o RM-Destination is allowed to abort delivery of received messages to
application destination if it cannot delivery the received message.
Note: the Best Effort Delivery function is really a function at all: it
has no obligations, while it does have a contractual permission for not
delivering a message which it has received. This does not seem to be a
valid reliability function.
The following table specifies the delivery assurances in terms of
engaged reliability functions.
Delivery Assurance |Guaranteed Receipt |Duplicate Elimination | Best
Effort Delivery
-------------------|-------------------|----------------------|---------------------
At least once | y | n | n
Exactly once | y | y | n
?At most once? | y | y | y
The following reliability function may be asserted along with any of the
above Delivery Assurances:
? In-order:
o Order is determined by the value of the RM message number. Ordered
delivery would mean that the messages would be delivered in ascending
order of the message number value.
o No obligations on RM-Source
o RM-Destination must hold a received message, for delivery to the
application destination, until all messages with smaller message number
within a sequence have been delivered to the application destination.
Note: The guaranteed delivery function is the only one which puts an
obligation on the rm-source. All of the reliability functions defined
above place obligations (or permissions in the case of ?Best Effort
Delivery?) on the rm-destination.
------------------
Step 3) of Proposal: Refinement of DA Definitions Required to Resolve
Discrepancy with traditional semantics of ?At Most Once?
The delivery assurance ?at most once?, as defined in WS-rm spc, seems
out of place. If the ws-rm spec is going to allow for ?best effort
Delivery? as a conformant behaviour contract for an RMD under special
circumstances, why is it only allowed in combination with Guaranteed
receipt and Duplicate Elimination reliability functions?
I propose two ways to fix this discrepancy:
3 a) Remove the concept of ?at most once? as defined in this spec.
The traditional use of the term ?at most once? delivery assurance
requires engagement of the duplicate elimination function without
requiring the guaranteed delivery function. Since it has been agreed
that the ws-rm protocol will always support the guaranteed Receipt
function, this traditional concept of ?at most once? is not compatible
with this protocol.
2 b) define two new delivery assurances with Best effort Delivery (for
consistency)
Delivery Assurance |Guaranteed Receipt |Duplicate Elimination |Best
Effort Delivery
-------------------|-------------------|----------------------|---------------------
At least once BED | y | n | y
Exactly once BED | y | y | y
Approach 3b) adds complexity to the Delivery assurance assertion
mechanism. It does not seem to go along with the concept of Reliable
messaging, and systems which do this should be considered as acting
outside the scope of the WS-rm specification.
I prefer proposal 3a).
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: tom@coastin.com; [email protected]
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]