Title: RE: [wsrm] Issue: ACK behavior with ordering and duplicate elimination
Agree that acks should be sent for any message received, including duplicates.
Note that messages that are resent are duplicates too: yet each of them needs be acked
separately (e.g. the resending may be caused precisely by a lost ack).
The semantics of Acks, as described in the spec (1.5 Terminology), is of
a release of responsibility of the Sender: The Receiver node takes over
the responsibility of processing the message further.
(which means, the only thing a Receiver needs to do to ensure this before sending an Ack,
is probably to persist the message.)
Jacques
-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick Yee [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 8:09 PM
To: Scott Werden
Cc:
Subject: Re: [wsrm] Issue: ACK behavior with ordering and duplicate
elimination
>A WSRM receiver must send the ACK after duplicate elimination (in order to
>not send duplicate ACKs).
>
>
IMHO, there is no harm to have duplicate ACKs. In fact, it will be clear
to the implementations of WSRM receiver that one ACK will be issued for
each incoming message, regardless of the WSRM features employed.
>A WSRM receiver should send the ACK before ordering (as opposed to when the
>message is delivered to the app, since this will delay the ACK for all
>messages queued up waiting for a delayed message in a sequence).
>
>
Agreed. Once again, I think ACK could be independent of other WSRM
functionalities (like ordering and duplicate elimination).
>Comments?
>
>
Just my $0.02.
Cheers, -Patrick
You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php
