Re: [ws-rx] NEW ISSUE: Editorial messages have to be received forthem to be examined:

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

Bob,

"Accept" probably needs a definition tied with our new "discard" term.  
Does "accept" mean exactly the opposite of "discard"?  Either define it 
or use "not discard" and similar wording.

Separately, in your "[NEW ISSUE] Rollover underspecified, state of 
sequence is unclear" thread, you seem to argue for a new Sequence state 
distinct from[1] non-existent (RMD unaware), active (RMD aware and 
accepting), closed (RMD aware but not accepting), and terminated (RMD 
unaware, has this been folded back into non-existent?).  That is, a new 
state in which only the missing messages in a gap-filled Sequence are 
accepted.  The text below does not allow for such a state.  Do I 
understand correctly?

thanx,
    doug

[1] my apologies for all incorrect names, I haven't grokked the latest 
state tables yet

On 26/06/06 11:44, Bob Freund-Hitachi wrote:
>
> In WD 15 Section 302 “Closing a Sequence” it states starting on line 428:
>
>  
>
> “If the RM Source wishes to close the Sequence, then it sends a 
> CloseSequence element, in the body of
>
> a message, to the RM Destination. This message indicates that the RM 
> Destination MUST NOT receive
>
> any new messages for the specified Sequence, other than those already 
> received at the time the
>
> CloseSequence element is interpreted by the RM Destination. Upon 
> receipt of this message, or
>
> subsequent to the RM Destination closing the Sequence of its own 
> volition, the RM Destination MUST
>
> include a final SequenceAcknowledgement (within which the RM 
> Destination MUST include the Final
>
> element) header block on any messages associated with the Sequence 
> destined to the RM Source,
>
> including the CloseSequenceResponse message or on any Sequence fault 
> transmitted to the RM Source.
>
> While the RM Destination MUST NOT receive any new messages for the 
> specified Sequence it MUST still
>
> process RM protocol messages. For example, it MUST respond to 
> AckRequested, TerminateSequence
>
> as well as CloseSequence messages. Note, subsequent CloseSequence 
> messages have no effect on the
>
> state of the Sequence.
>
>  
>
> In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a 
> Sequence it is RECOMMENDED
>
> that it close the Sequence. Please see Final and the SequenceClosed 
> fault. Whenever possible the
>
> SequenceClosed fault SHOULD be used in place of the SequenceTerminated 
> fault, whenever
>
> possible, to allow the RM Source to still receive Acknowledgements.
>
> ”
>
>  
>
> All messages that reach the RM Destination are received, if they were 
> not then this language would be unnecessary.
>
>  
>
> I suggest that we use the word “accept” in these cases as in the 
> proposal below in addition to a few editorial nits:
>
> changes are highlighted in yellow
>
>  
>
> “If the RM Source wishes to close the Sequence, then it sends a 
> CloseSequence element, in the body of
>
> a message, to the RM Destination. This element indicates that the RM 
> Destination MUST NOT accept
>
> any new messages for the specified Sequence, other than those already 
> accepted at the time the
>
> CloseSequence element is interpreted by the RM Destination. Upon 
> receipt of this element, or
>
> subsequent to the RM Destination closing the Sequence of its own 
> volition, the RM Destination MUST
>
> include a final SequenceAcknowledgement (within which the RM 
> Destination MUST include the Final
>
> element) header block on any messages associated with the Sequence 
> destined to the RM Source,
>
> including the CloseSequenceResponse element or on any Sequence fault 
> transmitted to the RM Source.
>
> While the RM Destination MUST NOT accept any new messages for the 
> specified Sequence it MUST still
>
> process messages containing RM protocol elements. For example, it MUST 
> respond to AckRequested, TerminateSequence
>
> as well as CloseSequence elements. Note, subsequent CloseSequence 
> elements have no effect on the
>
> state of the Sequence.
>
>  
>
> In the case where the RM Destination wishes to discontinue use of a 
> Sequence it is RECOMMENDED
>
> that it close the Sequence. Please see Final and the SequenceClosed 
> fault. Whenever possible the
>
> SequenceClosed fault SHOULD be used in place of the SequenceTerminated 
> fault, whenever
>
> possible, to allow the RM Source to still process Acknowledgements.”
>