Title: RE: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: semantics of "at most once" delivery assurance
Tom:
Per the definition of "at most once", and in case "at least once" is not required, I'd say the sender has no business in resending any message at all...
Now whether it makes sense or not to have At-most-once alone is another question. (I think it does.)
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Rutt2
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 2:56 PM
To: wsrx
Subject: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: semantics of "at most once" delivery assurance
*Title*: Semantics of "At most once" Delivery assurance.
*Description*:
The semantics of the "at most once" delivery assurance are not clear.
One interpretation is that at most once implies that the sender is not
required to retransmit mesages which are not acked.
*Justification*:
It is important to clarify whether the sender must retransmit
unacknowledged messages when the "at most once" delivery assurance is in
use.
*Target*: (core | soap | wsdl | policy | schema | all)
all
*Type: *(design | editorial)
design
*Proposal*:
Clarify the semantics. There are at least three possible semantics
associated with "at most once"
proposal 1) at most once means that the sender will never retransmit a
message, regardless of whether it is acknolweged by the destination.
Proposal 2) The sender may retransmis messages, but is not required to
to so, however the destination will not deliver duplicates
Proposal 3) the sender must retransmit messages, however the destination
may drop messages in times of resource saturation, but will never
deliver a duplicate.
*Related issues*:
Issue 9
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
