Issue 4314: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body (interop) Source: Triodia Technologies Pty Ltd (Mr. Michi Henning, michi(at)triodia.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: In CORBA 2.3, a GIOP 1.2 LocateReply message made no requirements as to the alignment of the LocateReply body. This meant that the LocateReply body needed to be aligned only on a 4-byte boundary. With the resolution for issue 2521, published with CORBA 2.4, the spec was changed to require alignment of the LocateReply body on an 8-byte boundary. The change is incompatible with the CORBA 2.3 definition because the receiver must know where to look for the ReplyBody in the the byte stream following the message header. (The LocateReply header is 12 bytes long, so changing the alignment rules means that the LocateReply body has to start at offset 12 for CORBA 2.3, but has to start at offset 16 for CORBA 2.4.) The change in alignment did *not* result in a version change of GIOP, despite the incompatibility, so it appears that the change is simply illegal. There are already deployed products that use the CORBA 2.3 alignment rule; therefore, we cannot deploy a CORBA 2.4 compliant product without breaking interoperability with already deployed CORBA 2.3 compliant products. So, I'd like to request that we back out the change and continue to permit a LocateReply body to be aligned on a 4-byte boundary. There was never any need to change the alignment of the LocateReply body anyway because a LocateReply header has fixed length and, therefore, cannot ever cause remarshaling of the body due to a size change in the header. In other words, the motivation quoted in the spec for the 8-byte alignment rule isn't founded on fact, and the change should never have been made in the first place. (See issue 4309 for details.) Resolution: Revised Text: Replace the final paragraph in section 15.4.6.2 on page 15-43 of CORBA 2.4.2, OMG document number formal/01-02-01: " In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum alignment for any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the ReplyBody will not require remarshaling if the Locate Reply Header are modified. " with: " Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the Locate Reply Header. " Actions taken: May 17, 2001: received issue October 3, 2001: closed issue Discussion: The culprit was the adopted resolution from Issue 2521, from ORB Interoperability 2000 RTF Report - Interop/00-1-1 The RTF caused an error by accepting the proposed resolution for issue 2521. It is not possible to signal which alignment method is being used without a new giop version. Proposed Resolution: Back out the revision from previous issue 2521, and add clarification End of Annotations:===== Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 09:15:34 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Andrew Watson cc: ab@omg.org, issues@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Message-ID: Organization: IONA Technologies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: Oe+e9F":!!9n0e9fH;e9 Hi, we just came across a nasty incompatibility we introduced with 2.4. If Andrew agrees, I would like to invoke the urgent issue resolution process for this. The problem: In CORBA 2.3, a GIOP 1.2 LocateReply message made no requirements as to the alignment of the LocateReply body. This meant that the LocateReply body needed to be aligned only on a 4-byte boundary. With the resolution for issue 2521, published with CORBA 2.4, the spec was changed to require alignment of the LocateReply body on an 8-byte boundary. The change is incompatible with the CORBA 2.3 definition because the receiver must know where to look for the ReplyBody in the the byte stream following the message header. (The LocateReply header is 12 bytes long, so changing the alignment rules means that the LocateReply body has to start at offset 12 for CORBA 2.3, but has to start at offset 16 for CORBA 2.4.) The change in alignment did *not* result in a version change of GIOP, despite the incompatibility, so it appears that the change is simply illegal. There are already deployed products that use the CORBA 2.3 alignment rule; therefore, we cannot deploy a CORBA 2.4 compliant product without breaking interoperability with already deployed CORBA 2.3 compliant products. So, I'd like to request that we back out the change and continue to permit a LocateReply body to be aligned on a 4-byte boundary. There was never any need to change the alignment of the LocateReply body anyway because a LocateReply header has fixed length and, therefore, cannot ever cause remarshaling of the body due to a size change in the header. In other words, the motivation quoted in the spec for the 8-byte alignment rule isn't founded on fact, and the change should never have been made in the first place. (See issue 4309 for details.) Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 Chief CORBA Scientist +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) IONA Technologies +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) Total Business Integration http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi X-Sender: beckwb@postel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:15:13 -0400 To: Michi Henning From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Re: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, issues@omg.org, Interoperability RTF In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: P7Ud9kncd9R9h!!/:X!! The new text in section 15.6.4.2 of the 2.4.1 spec says: In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum alignment for any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the ReplyBody will not require remarshaling if the Locate Reply Header are modified. So it looks like the oversight of leaving Locate Reply Bodies out of the 8-byte alignment rule in GIOP 1.2 is not recoverable. Groan. Therefore, I concur with Michi's analysis and his desire to resolve this via the urgent issue resolution process. The alignment rule should definitely be applied to Locate Reply Bodies in the next GIOP rev. Bill *************************************************************** bill.beckwith@ois.com | +1 703 295 6519 | fax: +1 703 295 6501 Objective Interface Systems, Inc. | http://www.ois.com/ 13873 Park Center Road | Suite 360 | Herndon, VA 20171-3247 USA *************************************************************** At 07:15 PM 5/16/01, Michi Henning wrote: >Hi, > >we just came across a nasty incompatibility we introduced with 2.4. If >Andrew agrees, I would like to invoke the urgent issue resolution process >for this. > >The problem: > >In CORBA 2.3, a GIOP 1.2 LocateReply message made no requirements as to >the alignment of the LocateReply body. This meant that the LocateReply >body needed to be aligned only on a 4-byte boundary. With the resolution >for issue 2521, published with CORBA 2.4, the spec was changed to require >alignment of the LocateReply body on an 8-byte boundary. > >The change is incompatible with the CORBA 2.3 definition because the receiver >must know where to look for the ReplyBody in the the byte stream following >the message header. (The LocateReply header is 12 bytes long, so changing >the alignment rules means that the LocateReply body has to start at offset 12 >for CORBA 2.3, but has to start at offset 16 for CORBA 2.4.) > >The change in alignment did *not* result in a version change of GIOP, >despite the incompatibility, so it appears that the change is simply illegal. > >There are already deployed products that use the CORBA 2.3 alignment >rule; therefore, we cannot deploy a CORBA 2.4 compliant product without >breaking interoperability with already deployed CORBA 2.3 compliant products. > >So, I'd like to request that we back out the change and continue to >permit a LocateReply body to be aligned on a 4-byte boundary. There was >never any need to change the alignment of the LocateReply body anyway because >a LocateReply header has fixed length and, therefore, cannot ever cause >remarshaling of the body due to a size change in the header. In other >words, the motivation quoted in the spec for the 8-byte alignment rule >isn't founded on fact, and the change should never have been made in the first >place. (See issue 4309 for details.) > > Cheers, > > Michi. >-- >Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 >Chief CORBA Scientist +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) >IONA Technologies +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) >Total Business Integration http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi X-Authentication-Warning: emerald.omg.org: hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3] didn't use HELO protocol Received: from 110-94.bestdsl.net (216.162.110.94) by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(1.0) id 32113; Fri, 18 May 2001 12:17:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from ocilap5.ociweb.com (IDENT:cleeland@ocilap5.ociweb.com [205.159.59.8]) by fw.milodesigns.com (8.9.3/8.8.7) with ESMTP id LAA15067; Fri, 18 May 2001 11:08:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:56:04 -0500 (CDT) From: Chris Cleeland To: Bill Beckwith cc: Michi Henning , Andrew Watson , , , Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010518095358.029314f0@postel> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: XJad93b$!!j/c!!U?L!! On Fri, 18 May 2001, Bill Beckwith wrote: > The new text in section 15.6.4.2 of the 2.4.1 spec says: > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are > marshaled into the CDR encapsulation of the containing > Message immediately following the Reply Header. In GIOP > version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an > 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum > alignment for any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the > ReplyBody will not require remarshaling if the Locate > Reply Header are modified. > > So it looks like the oversight of leaving Locate Reply > Bodies out of the 8-byte alignment rule in GIOP 1.2 is not > recoverable. Groan. > > Therefore, I concur with Michi's analysis and his desire to > resolve this via the urgent issue resolution process. How long do urgent issues such as this typically take to get resolved? We've got an upcoming release, we're currently compliant with the 2.4 spec, i.e., 8 byte alignment, and would prefer to not have to issue a patch later. Is anybody really going to try to argue AGAINST the reverting back to 4 byte alignment? Is it reasonably safe to switch back to 4 byte alignment now in anticipation of this issue sailing thru the process? Thanks, -cj -- Chris Cleeland, cleeland_c @ ociweb.com, http://www.milodesigns.com/~chris Principal Software Engineer, Object Computing, Inc., +1 314 579 0066 "Everybody wants prosthetic foreheads on their real heads." THANKS TO ALL FOR THE MS150 SPONSORSHIP -- 184.69 miles IN TWO DAYS! X-Sender: andrew@192.67.184.65 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:29:42 +0100 To: Michi Henning From: Andrew Watson Subject: Re: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: ab@omg.org, issues@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: 9,Ie9-#?e9m/c!!`@9!! Michi, You wrote: > we just came across a nasty incompatibility we introduced with 2.4. If > Andrew agrees, I would like to invoke the urgent issue resolution process > for this. Sounds reasonable. I'll set the wheels in motion on Monday. Cheers, Andrew X-Sender: andrew@192.67.184.65 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010518095358.029314f0@postel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 23:31:21 +0100 To: Chris Cleeland From: Andrew Watson Subject: Re: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: Bill Beckwith , Michi Henning , , , Interoperability RTF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: \h>!!/\'!!`5C!!8S0!! Chris, You wrote: > How long do urgent issues such as this typically take to get resolved? Two weeks maximum. > We've got an upcoming release, we're currently compliant with the 2.4 > spec, i.e., 8 byte alignment, and would prefer to not have to issue a > patch later. A good reason to do this as an urgent issue - this is exactly the kind of situation for which the process is intended. Cheers, Andrew Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 09:44:10 +0200 (MEST) Message-Id: <200105220744.JAA22092@pandora.informatik.hu-berlin.de> X-Authentication-Warning: pandora.informatik.hu-berlin.de: loewis set sender to loewis@informatik.hu-berlin.de using -f From: Martin von Loewis To: juergen@omg.org CC: interop@emerald.omg.org In-reply-to: <4.3.2.7.2.20010521135308.025c8ce0@emerald.omg.org> (message from Juergen Boldt on Mon, 21 May 2001 13:54:36 -0400) Subject: Re: issue 4314 LABELLED AS URGENT --Interop RTF issue References: <4.3.2.7.2.20010521135308.025c8ce0@emerald.omg.org> User-Agent: SEMI/1.13.7 (Awazu) FLIM/1.13.2 (Kasanui) Emacs/20.6 (sparc-sun-solaris2.6) MULE/4.0 (HANANOEN) MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.13.7 - "Awazu") Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: Q-De9p&"e9N0]!!VJA!! > This is URGENT issue 4314 > > Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Shouldn't there be a default resolution on an urgent issue (specific editing instructions) that gets accepted if the relevant RTF does not come to a conclusion within two weeks? Regards, Martin To: Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: LocateReply body alignment Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 16:43:27 +0100 From: Craig Ryan Content-Type: text X-UIDL: (Eed9+gSd9)cNd9E*o!! Hi all, It would help to know just how much of an interoperability problem we have between ORBs that implement either the CORBA 2.3 behaviour (4 byte body alignment for GIOP 1.2 LocateReply messages) or CORBA 2.4 behaviour (8 byte body alignment for GIOP 1.2 LocateReply messages). Would the various vendors please mind indicating here which specification they support in currently shipped products? FYI, all IONA's Orbix2000 releases implement the 2.3 behaviour. thanks, Craig Ryan. IONA Technologies. X-Sender: beckwb@postel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 12:15:17 -0400 To: Craig Ryan From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Re: LocateReply body alignment Cc: Interoperability RTF In-Reply-To: <200105231531.QAA29766@dublin.iona.ie> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: $U6!!el9e9Uh8!!dW!!! At 11:43 AM 5/23/01, Craig Ryan wrote: > >Hi all, > >It would help to know just how much of an interoperability problem we >have between ORBs that implement either the CORBA 2.3 behaviour (4 >byte body alignment for GIOP 1.2 LocateReply messages) or CORBA 2.4 >behaviour (8 byte body alignment for GIOP 1.2 LocateReply messages). >Would the various vendors please mind indicating here which >specification they support in currently shipped products? > >FYI, all IONA's Orbix2000 releases implement the 2.3 behaviour. So do Objective Interface's ORBexpress products. Bill Date: Fri, 25 May 2001 16:10:38 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: terutt@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michi Henning CC: Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, terutt@lucent.com, Interoperability RTF Subject: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: 9:Me9E0nd9]9O!!li]!! Status: RO This messages has a proposed resolution for the urgent issue. Please do not vote yet, but give wordsmithing comments of the actual proposed resolution text at the end of this message. Tom Rutt terutt@lucent.com ------------- Issue 4314: Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body (interop) Source: IONA (Mr. Michi Henning, michi.henning@iona.com) Nature: Revision Severity: Critical Summary: In CORBA 2.3, a GIOP 1.2 LocateReply message made no requirements as to the alignment of the LocateReply body. This meant that the LocateReply body needed to be aligned only on a 4-byte boundary. With the resolution for issue 2521, published with CORBA 2.4, the spec was changed to require alignment of the LocateReply body on an 8-byte boundary. The change is incompatible with the CORBA 2.3 definition because the receiver must know where to look for the ReplyBody in the the byte stream following the message header. (The LocateReply header is 12 bytes long, so changing the alignment rules means that the LocateReply body has to start at offset 12 for CORBA 2.3, but has to start at offset 16 for CORBA 2.4.) The change in alignment did *not* result in a version change of GIOP, despite the incompatibility, so it appears that the change is simply illegal. There are already deployed products that use the CORBA 2.3 alignment rule; therefore, we cannot deploy a CORBA 2.4 compliant product without breaking interoperability with already deployed CORBA 2.3 compliant products. So, I'd like to request that we back out the change and continue to permit a LocateReply body to be aligned on a 4-byte boundary. There was never any need to change the alignment of the LocateReply body anyway because a LocateReply header has fixed length and, therefore, cannot ever cause remarshaling of the body due to a size change in the header. In other words, the motivation quoted in the spec for the 8-byte alignment rule isn't founded on fact, and the change should never have been made in the first place. (See issue 4309 for details.) Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: May 17, 2001: received issue ---- The culprit was the following adopted resolution from ORB Interoperability 2000 RTF Report - Interop/00-1-1 Issue 2521: LocateReply body alignment issue (interop) Click here for this issue's archive. Source: IONA (Mr. Craig Ryan, cryan@iona.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: Hi folks, I know this is a bit late but I was going through some GIOP 1.2 issues with Bob and I only just noticed another required clarification for LocateReply messages. Bascially the text added under Request/Reply which states 'In GIOP 1.2, the Request[/Reply] Body is always aligned on an 8 octet boundary' was not also added to the description for LocateReply's (15.4.2.2). I presume the requirement was intended for the body data of all message types. If so, perhaps it would make sense to move this text to the start of 15.4 and reworded to indicate the requirement for all message body data in general. If the LocateReply body alignment issue will not be clarified in the GIOP 1.2 specification then I wish to submit this as a new interop issue. Actions taken: March 8, 1999: received issue Discussion: The giop text on fragment message includes the following paragraph: " For GIOP version 1.2, the total length (including the message header) of a fragment other than the final fragment of a fragmented message are required to be a multiple of 8 bytes in length, allowing bridges to defragment and/or refragment messages without having to remarshal the encoded data to insert or remove padding. " Thus the intent was to have 8 byte body aligment for locate reply . It should be considered an editorial change within the scope of this RTF to add the text stating this explictly. Agreed resolution: close with revised text Revised Text: Add the following paragraph to the LocateReplyBody definition secion (15.4.6.2): " In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum alignment for any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the ReplyBody will not require remarshaling if the Locate Reply Header are modified. " ------- I agree that we made a dire error in accepting the resolution for issue 2521. It is not possible to signal which alignment method is being used so a new giop version should have been used to go along with the padding changes. I propose that we back out the proposed change to 2521, and replace it with a paragraph stating "Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled directly after the locate reply header, without introducting additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start of the locate reply body. " X-Sender: beckwb@postel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 12:52:07 -0400 To: terutt@lucent.com From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: Michi Henning , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, terutt@lucent.com, Interoperability RTF In-Reply-To: <3B0EBC3E.D33AF21C@lucent.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: \Im!!4"O!!5[%!!$fcd9 Status: RO At 04:10 PM 5/25/01, Tom Rutt wrote: >I propose that we back out the proposed change to 2521, and >replace it with a paragraph stating > >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start >of the locate reply body." Looks good to me. Bill Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 07:51:32 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Bill Beckwith cc: "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> Message-ID: Organization: IONA Technologies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: ~Pd!!H"c!!$_=!!I7 At 04:10 PM 5/25/01, Tom Rutt wrote: > > >I propose that we back out the proposed change to 2521, and > >replace it with a paragraph stating > > > >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will > >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when > >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply > >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled > >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting > >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start > >of the locate reply body." > > Looks good to me. Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final para on page 15-43 with: The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary following the LocateReply header. That's really all that needs to be said, I think. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 Chief CORBA Scientist +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) IONA Technologies +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) Total Business Integration http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi X-Authentication-Warning: emerald.omg.org: hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3] didn't use HELO protocol Received: from patan.sun.com (192.18.98.43) by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(1.0) id 24603; Sun, 27 May 2001 10:14:55 -0400 (EDT) Received: from shorter.eng.sun.com ([129.144.174.35]) by patan.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3) with ESMTP id IAA28487; Sun, 27 May 2001 08:10:00 -0600 (MDT) Received: from sun.com (dsl196-254 [129.146.196.254]) by shorter.eng.sun.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.3/ENSMAIL,v2.1p1) with ESMTP id HAA22071; Sun, 27 May 2001 07:09:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <3B110A28.95243368@sun.com> Date: Sun, 27 May 2001 07:07:36 -0700 From: Harold Carr X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.51 [en] (WinNT; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: terutt@lucent.com CC: Michi Henning , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF , Everett Anderson , peter.walker@Eng.Sun.Com Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: <3B0EBC3E.D33AF21C@lucent.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: i)@e9\mgd9@g-e9n"Be9 Status: RO I'll be on vacation May 27 - June 2. If anything comes up for a vote during that time Everett Anderson will vote as proxy for me/Sun. Thanks, Harold X-Sender: beckwb@postel X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0 Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 10:16:41 -0400 To: Michi Henning From: Bill Beckwith Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF In-Reply-To: References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: `&pd96B\d9Q$6!!f4^d9 Status: RO At 05:51 PM 5/27/01, Michi Henning wrote: >On Sun, 27 May 2001, Bill Beckwith wrote: > >> At 04:10 PM 5/25/01, Tom Rutt wrote: >> >> >I propose that we back out the proposed change to 2521, and >> >replace it with a paragraph stating >> > >> >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will >> >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when >> >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply >> >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled >> >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting >> >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start >> >of the locate reply body." >> >> Looks good to me. > >Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final >para on page 15-43 with: > > The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary > following the LocateReply header. > >That's really all that needs to be said, I think. I agree with the less-is-more philosophy. The text that got us in trouble was: In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. We could stick with a corrected version of the original: Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the Locate Reply Header. Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the natural alignment of the body. Bill Sender: jon@corvette.floorboard.com Message-ID: <3B129523.6CC64366@floorboard.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:12:51 -0700 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Beckwith CC: Michi Henning , "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> <5.0.0.25.2.20010528100822.025d13d0@postel> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: @;/e9dUXd93?D!!MQNe9 Status: RO Bill Beckwith wrote: > >> >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will > >> >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when > >> >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply > >> >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled > >> >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting > >> >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start > >> >of the locate reply body." > >> > >> Looks good to me. > > > >Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final > >para on page 15-43 with: > > > > The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary > > following the LocateReply header. > > > >That's really all that needs to be said, I think. > > I agree with the less-is-more philosophy. The text that got us in > trouble was: > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled > into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately > following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body > is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. > > We could stick with a corrected version of the original: > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > Locate Reply Header. > > Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the > natural alignment of the body. I think Bill's text is best so far. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 06:57:32 +1000 (EST) From: Michi Henning To: Bill Beckwith cc: Michi Henning , "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body In-Reply-To: <5.0.0.25.2.20010528100822.025d13d0@postel> Message-ID: Organization: IONA Technologies MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-UIDL: W7Td9DD We could stick with a corrected version of the original: > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > Locate Reply Header. > > Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the > natural alignment of the body. OK, that's sounds good to me. Cheers, Michi. -- Michi Henning +61 7 3324 9633 Chief CORBA Scientist +61 4 1118 2700 (mobile) IONA Technologies +61 7 3324 9799 (fax) Total Business Integration http://www.ooc.com.au/staff/michi X-Authentication-Warning: emerald.omg.org: hobbit.omg.org [192.67.184.3] didn't use HELO protocol Received: from corvette.floorboard.com (64.121.176.53) by hobbit.omg.org asmtp(1.0) id 29800; Mon, 28 May 2001 14:18:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from floorboard.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by corvette.floorboard.com (8.9.3+Sun/8.8.8) with ESMTP id LAA29083; Mon, 28 May 2001 11:12:51 -0700 (PDT) Sender: jon@corvette.floorboard.com Message-ID: <3B129523.6CC64366@floorboard.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2001 11:12:51 -0700 From: Jonathan Biggar X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; SunOS 5.7 sun4u) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bill Beckwith CC: Michi Henning , "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> <5.0.0.25.2.20010528100822.025d13d0@postel> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: )[L!!]-P!!W$cd9EF7e9 Status: RO Bill Beckwith wrote: > >> >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will > >> >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when > >> >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply > >> >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled > >> >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting > >> >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start > >> >of the locate reply body." > >> > >> Looks good to me. > > > >Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final > >para on page 15-43 with: > > > > The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary > > following the LocateReply header. > > > >That's really all that needs to be said, I think. > > I agree with the less-is-more philosophy. The text that got us in > trouble was: > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled > into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately > following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body > is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. > > We could stick with a corrected version of the original: > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > Locate Reply Header. > > Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the > natural alignment of the body. I think Bill's text is best so far. -- Jon Biggar Floorboard Software jon@floorboard.com jon@biggar.org Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 11:04:27 -0400 From: Jishnu Mukerji Reply-To: jishnu_mukerji@hp.com Organization: Hewlett-Packard EIAL, Florham Park NJ, USA X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.7 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jonathan Biggar Cc: Bill Beckwith , Michi Henning , "Rutt, T E (Tom)" , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> <5.0.0.25.2.20010528100822.025d13d0@postel> <3B129523.6CC64366@floorboard.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: >fCe9&R`d94O/e9:P`d9 Jonathan Biggar wrote: > > Bill Beckwith wrote: > > >> >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will > > >> >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when > > >> >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply > > >> >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled > > >> >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting > > >> >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start > > >> >of the locate reply body." > > >> > > >> Looks good to me. > > > > > >Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final > > >para on page 15-43 with: > > > > > > The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary > > > following the LocateReply header. > > > > > >That's really all that needs to be said, I think. > > > > I agree with the less-is-more philosophy. The text that got us in > > trouble was: > > > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled > > into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately > > following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body > > is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. > > > > We could stick with a corrected version of the original: > > > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > > Locate Reply Header. > > > > Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the > > natural alignment of the body. > > I think Bill's text is best so far. I agree. It says everything that needs to be said. Jishnu. X-Sender: andrew@192.67.184.65 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <3B0EBC3E.D33AF21C@lucent.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 17:18:43 +0100 To: terutt@lucent.com From: Andrew Watson Subject: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body Cc: Michi Henning , terutt@lucent.com, Interoperability RTF , Juergen Boldt Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-UIDL: TLk!!JKSd9Z; Reply-To: terutt@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jishnu_mukerji@hp.com CC: Jonathan Biggar , Bill Beckwith , Michi Henning , Andrew Watson , ab@omg.org, Interoperability RTF Subject: Re: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReply body References: <5.0.0.25.2.20010527125029.039ba440@postel> <5.0.0.25.2.20010528100822.025d13d0@postel> <3B129523.6CC64366@floorboard.com> <3B13BA7B.8D09BD7D@hp.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: _Dcd9\?Wd96e@e9EH9e9 I also agree with the shortened words suggested by Bill Tom Rutt If there are no more suggestions, I will put this 0ut for vote on thursday. Tom Rutt Jishnu Mukerji wrote: > > Jonathan Biggar wrote: > > > > Bill Beckwith wrote: > > > >> >"Since the header for locate reply is fixed Sized, the body will > > > >> >never have to be remarshalled due to header changes (e.g., when > > > >> >an ORB relays GIOP locate reply messages). The locate reply > > > >> >body in giop versions 1.0, 1.1 and 1.2 is always marshalled > > > >> >directly after the locate reply header, without introducting > > > >> >additional padding to ensure an 8 octet alignment for the start > > > >> >of the locate reply body." > > > >> > > > >> Looks good to me. > > > > > > > >Hmmm... A of of words for little content. How about replacing the final > > > >para on page 15-43 with: > > > > > > > > The LocateReply body begins on the next 4-byte boundary > > > > following the LocateReply header. > > > > > > > >That's really all that needs to be said, I think. > > > > > > I agree with the less-is-more philosophy. The text that got us in > > > trouble was: > > > > > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled > > > into the CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately > > > following the Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body > > > is always aligned on an 8-octet boundary. > > > > > > We could stick with a corrected version of the original: > > > > > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > > > Locate Reply Header. > > > > > > Since the 4-byte alignment isn't a requirement other than the > > > natural alignment of the body. > > > > I think Bill's text is best so far. > > I agree. It says everything that needs to be said. > > Jishnu. Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:09:39 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: terutt@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Watson CC: Michi Henning , Interoperability RTF , Juergen Boldt Subject: Final Wordsmith: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReplybody References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: +_j!!_MQe90Z > [AB removed from CC list - interop seems to be doing fine on this one :-)] > > Good Afternoon, > > Sorry I'm behind on publishing this "offical" urgent resolution > declaration. Here it is: > > I am classifying Issue 4314 as Urgent, in accordance with procedure > described in section 4.4.1.5 of the P&P, available here: > > http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?pp > > You can find the thread of discussion on this issue here: > > http://www.omg.org/issues/issue4314.txt > > The issue will be voted on by the Interoperability RTF. > > The default resolution will be to replace this paragraph, which is the > final paragraph in section 15.4.6.2 on page 15-43 of CORBA 2.4.2, OMG > document number formal/01-02-01: > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the > CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the > Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an > 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum alignment for > any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the ReplyBody will not require > remarshaling if the Locate Reply Header are modified. > > In the default resolution, this entire paragraph is replaced with: > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > Locate Reply Header. > > (This is intended to be a restatement of Bill Beckwith's proposal, just to > make sure we agree exactly what text gets replaced) > > This default resolution will be applied to CORBA 2.4.2 if and only if the > Interop RTF fails to generate a resolution within 14 days (i.e. by Tue 12th > June). It is not necessarily the most desirable resolution, and even if it > is, the RTF should nevertheless vote on it rather than allow it to be > applied by default (so as to expedite the process). > > As usual, I strongly recommend that any proposed resolutions aired on the > RTF mailing list continue to include the *EXACT* wording of proposed > amendments, as they've been doing so far (good work everyone!). > > Thanks, > > Andrew Date: Tue, 29 May 2001 16:25:16 -0400 From: Tom Rutt Reply-To: terutt@lucent.com Organization: Lucent Technologies X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en]C-CCK-MCD EMS-1.5 (Win95; U) X-Accept-Language: en,pdf MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Watson CC: Michi Henning , Interoperability RTF , Juergen Boldt Subject: Last Wordsmith: Proposed Resolution for Urgent issue: Alignment of LocateReplybody References: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-UIDL: _]W!!19(e9>_ > [AB removed from CC list - interop seems to be doing fine on this one :-)] > > Good Afternoon, > > Sorry I'm behind on publishing this "offical" urgent resolution > declaration. Here it is: > > I am classifying Issue 4314 as Urgent, in accordance with procedure > described in section 4.4.1.5 of the P&P, available here: > > http://cgi.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?pp > > You can find the thread of discussion on this issue here: > > http://www.omg.org/issues/issue4314.txt > > The issue will be voted on by the Interoperability RTF. > > The default resolution will be to replace this paragraph, which is the > final paragraph in section 15.4.6.2 on page 15-43 of CORBA 2.4.2, OMG > document number formal/01-02-01: > > In GIOP version 1.0 and 1.1, Locate reply bodies are marshaled into the > CDR encapsulation of the containing Message immediately following the > Reply Header. In GIOP version 1.2, the Reply Body is always aligned on an > 8-octet boundary. The fact that GIOP specifies the maximum alignment for > any primitive type is 8 guarantees that the ReplyBody will not require > remarshaling if the Locate Reply Header are modified. > > In the default resolution, this entire paragraph is replaced with: > > Locate reply bodies are marshaled immediately following the > Locate Reply Header. > > (This is intended to be a restatement of Bill Beckwith's proposal, just to > make sure we agree exactly what text gets replaced) > > This default resolution will be applied to CORBA 2.4.2 if and only if the > Interop RTF fails to generate a resolution within 14 days (i.e. by Tue 12th > June). It is not necessarily the most desirable resolution, and even if it > is, the RTF should nevertheless vote on it rather than allow it to be > applied by default (so as to expedite the process). > > As usual, I strongly recommend that any proposed resolutions aired on the > RTF mailing list continue to include the *EXACT* wording of proposed > amendments, as they've been doing so far (good work everyone!). > > Thanks, > > Andrew -- ---------- Tom Rutt Tel: +1 732 949 7862 Global Strategic Standards Fax: +1 732 949 1192 Lucent Technologies terutt@lucent.com