Issue 886: Changes to and strategy for 1.2 (interop) Source: (, ) Nature: Revision Severity: Significant Summary: Summary: There are 2 changes: 1. add the request id to message fragments so that fragmentation is usable. 2. change the alignment rules so that message headers may be changed without having to remarshal the body. [ as an aside we"d really like to remove all the alignment rules so that any"s no longer have to be double marshaled, but we don"t think its possible to deal with all the details quickly ] 3. Add some more addressing information to request, locate_request,etc. Resolution: Revised Text: Actions taken: January 8, 1998: received issue June 25, 1998: closed issue Discussion: End of Annotations:===== Return-Path: From: Hans Bjurstrom Date: Thu, 8 Jan 1998 23:55:46 +0100 To: juergen@omg.org Subject: Interop 1.3 revision cycle X-Sun-Charset: ISO-8859-1 Hello Jurgen, A revision request for Interop 1.3. Tom Rutt wrote: It is to late for this revision cycle (revision out for vote) but you can write up your revisions request and send it to juergen@omg.org and he will post it for the next revision cycle. I believe that two host IDs would require two profiles in the IOR which is allowed today. I am not sure there is an issue, but anyway post it and we will work onit for the the 1.3 revision cycle. Tom Rutt ---------------------- Hello, I would like to raise an issue in the GIOP/IIOP protocol. Source: Ericsson Utvecklings AB (Hans Bjurstrvm) Nature: Uncategorized Severity: Summary: An ORB that runs on a host with has several network connections would perhaps like to include two (or more) ip addresses (in tagged profiles) for the same object in an IOR which is allowed by the current standard. What two do with these duplicate profiles is not clear. If two addresses are present an conformant GIOP 1.2 stack on the client side could select the second address in case of no response on the first one in case of several taggeped profiles with same profileid. Regards Hans Bjurstrvm Return-Path: Date: Fri, 09 Jan 1998 22:24:10 -0800 From: "Jon Goldberg" To: Juergen Boldt CC: issues@omg.org, interop@omg.org Subject: Re: issue886 References: <3.0.32.19980109143445.00bd5fa8@emerald.omg.org> I'm not sure I understand this issue. Is it a question of how to use an IOR having multiple profiles for the same TAG? If so, I think the wording below should be cleaned up a bit to make it clear that the issue is a general one of defining a profile-selection algorithm, not really having anything to do with multiple interface cards. thanks, Jon -- Jon Goldberg goldberg@visigenic.com Juergen Boldt wrote: > > This is issue # 886 > > Do two host IDs require two profiles in the IOR > > An ORB that runs on a host with has several network connections > would perhaps like > to include two (or more) ip addresses (in tagged profiles) > for the > same > object in an IOR > which is allowed by the current standard. What two do with > these duplicate profiles is not clear. > Return-Path: From: Hans Bjurstrom Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 10:24:32 +0100 To: goldberg@visigenic.com Subject: Re: issue886 Cc: interop@omg.org, wgw@SEI.CMU.EDU, Lars.Hennert@uab.ericsson.se X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII Jon, I issued this request. The reasoning about multiple interface cards was only background information on how an IOR with multiple tags (same tag) for an object might come into existance. As you point out this issue has to do with what an compliant ORB does when using an IOR and several tagged profiles for the same object are present with the same tag, and specially the behaviour of an (client) ORB if the object is unreachable because of communication problems and a second address happens to be available. Rephrase: What should an GIOP 1.3 compliant ORB do when several tagged profiles for the same protocol is present in an IOR and a communication problem arises when using one - say the address in the first profile of a type. Suggestion: Try the other ones before returning an exception to the application in the TCP/IP case. Possibly this should/could be defined on a per-profile basis (in a real-time environment an exception might be preferred if there is some deadline about to be missed). Hans Bjurstrom, Ericsson Utvecklings AB, contributing member. > > I'm not sure I understand this issue. Is it a question of how > to use an IOR having multiple profiles for the same TAG? > If so, I think the wording below should be cleaned up a bit > to make it clear that the issue is a general one of defining > a profile-selection algorithm, not really having anything > to do with multiple interface cards. > > thanks, > Jon > > -- > Jon Goldberg > goldberg@visigenic.com > > Juergen Boldt wrote: > > > > This is issue # 886 > > > > Do two host IDs require two profiles in the IOR > > > > An ORB that runs on a host with has several network connections > > would perhaps like > > to include two (or more) ip addresses (in tagged > profiles) > > for the > > same > > object in an IOR > > which is allowed by the current standard. What two do > with > > these duplicate profiles is not clear. > > > > > Return-Path: Sender: "Jon Goldberg" Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 09:38:05 -0800 From: Jon Goldberg Organization: Visigenic Software, Inc. To: Hans Bjurstrom CC: interop@omg.org, wgw@SEI.CMU.EDU, Lars.Hennert@uab.ericsson.se Subject: Re: issue886 References: <199801120924.KAA15139@uabs31i5c36.uab.ericsson.se> Sounds good to me. I'd like to add to the "suggestion" that the default ordering for using profiles is to try lower indexed profiles first. I agree with your suggestion that specifications should state overrides of this behavior if need be (such as with your security example). take care, Jon Hans Bjurstrom wrote: > > Jon, > > I issued this request. The reasoning about multiple > interface cards was only background information on how an > IOR with multiple tags (same tag) for an object might come > into existance. > > As you point out this issue has to do with what an compliant ORB > does > when using an IOR and several tagged profiles for the same object > are > present with the same tag, and specially the behaviour of an > (client) > ORB if the object is unreachable because of communication problems > and > a second address happens to be available. > > Rephrase: > > What should an GIOP 1.3 compliant ORB do when several > tagged profiles for the same protocol is present in an IOR > and a communication problem arises when using one - say the > address in the first profile of a type. > > Suggestion: > > Try the other ones before returning an exception to the application > in the TCP/IP case. > > Possibly this should/could be defined on a per-profile basis > (in a real-time environment an exception might be preferred > if there is some deadline about to be missed). > > Hans Bjurstrom, Ericsson Utvecklings AB, contributing member. > > > > > I'm not sure I understand this issue. Is it a question of how > > to use an IOR having multiple profiles for the same TAG? > > If so, I think the wording below should be cleaned up a bit > > to make it clear that the issue is a general one of defining > > a profile-selection algorithm, not really having anything > > to do with multiple interface cards. > > > > thanks, > > Jon > > > > -- > > Jon Goldberg > > goldberg@visigenic.com > > > > Juergen Boldt wrote: > > > > > > This is issue # 886 > > > > > > Do two host IDs require two profiles in the IOR > > > > > > An ORB that runs on a host with has several network connections > > > would perhaps like > > > to include two (or more) ip addresses (in tagged > profiles) > > > for the > > > same > > > object in an IOR > > > which is allowed by the current standard. What two do > with > > > these duplicate profiles is not clear. > > > > > > > > >