Hi,
No matter what the DA is, any unACK'd
message needs to be resent.
DAs have no impact on the protocol itself.
thanks,
-Doug
Anish Karmarkar <>
07/25/2005 01:11 PM
To
cc
wsrx <>
Subject
Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: semantics
of "at most once" delivery assurance
Two related questions that need to be answered are:
can a RM receiver send a NACK in case of AtMostOnce DA? If yes, what is
the RM sender supposed to do when it receives such a NACK and it is
never going to retransmit the message (as it has already thrown away the
message) -- i.e. to prevent the RM receiver from NACKing the message
repeatedly, should the RM sender send a specific fault?
-Anish
--
Tom Rutt wrote:
> *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
>
