Issue 1302: No provision for numbering the fragments in fragmented IIOP messages (interop) Source: (, ) Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant Summary: Summary: There seems to be no provision for numbering the fragments in fragmented IIOP messages. It is apparently assumed that the fragments will always be received in the order that they are generated, however in unreliable networks, such as mobile networks, this may not be a safe assumption. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 1, 1998: received issue June 23, 1998: moved from orb_revision to interop June 25, 1998: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 23:36:13 -0400 From: www To: juergen@omg.org, web-incoming@omg.org Subject: WWW Form output Name: Paul Runyan Company: Nokia Email: paul.runyan@nmp.nokia.com Notification: Yes Specification: CORBA 2.2 Spec Section: 13.4.8 Formal #: 98-02-33 Version: 2.2 Revision_Date: 02/98 Page: Nature: Clarification Severity: Significant full_desc: There seems to be no provision for numbering the fragments in fragmented IIOP messages. It is apparently assumed that the fragments will always be received in the order that they are generated, however in unreliable networks, such as mobile networks, this may not be a safe assumption. submit: Submit Issue Report Return-Path: Sender: jon@floorboard.com Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 09:28:35 -0700 From: Jonathan Biggar To: orb_revision@omg.org CC: paul.runyan@nmp.nokia.com Subject: Re: issue 1302 -- Core Revision issue References: <3.0.32.19980501100828.0074669c@emerald.omg.org> Juergen Boldt wrote: > > This is issue # 1302 > > No provision for numbering the fragments in fragmented IIOP messages > > There seems to be no provision for numbering the fragments in > fragmented > IIOP messages. It is apparently assumed that the fragments will > always > be received in the order that they are generated, however in > unreliable > networks, such as mobile networks, this may not be a safe > assumption. There is no need for numbering the fragments, since they are carried on a TCP/IP stream which already assures that the data is received in the proper order. If in the future a new protocol were defined that carried GIOP messages over a datagram service, like UDP, then packet reordering issues become important. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Return-Path: Errors-To: postmaster@discreet.com Sender: raz@discreet.com Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:01:36 -0400 From: Roland Turner Organization: - To: issues@omg.org CC: orb_revision@omg.org Subject: Re: issue 1302 -- Core Revision issue References: <3.0.32.19980501100828.0074669c@emerald.omg.org> Juergen Boldt wrote: > This is issue # 1302 > > No provision for numbering the fragments in fragmented IIOP messages > > There seems to be no provision for numbering the fragments in > fragmented > IIOP messages. It is apparently assumed that the fragments will > always > be received in the order that they are generated, however in > unreliable > networks, such as mobile networks, this may not be a safe > assumption. >From CORBA 2.2 13.5 "GIOP Message Transport": > The transport is reliable. Specifically, the transport guarantees > that bytes are delivered in the order they are sent, at most once, > and that some positive acknowledgment of delivery is available. That is, all GIOP mappings (including IIOP) must be provided with an underlying reliable transport. It is not GIOP/IIOP's job to provide that transport. - Raz