Doing nothing, identical to the handling of the original message that
remains in the "hold for rest of sequence" queue.
On 16-Dec-03 13:50, Tom Rutt wrote:
> Doug Bunting wrote:
>
>> Sorry, I must have missed something important a while back. The idea
>> of a fault returned when a duplicate is received seems flawed from the
>> start and the questions below are only the start of the problems.
>>
>> From the original sender's perspective, it is irrelevant whether it
>> was the previous outbound message or the acknowledgement response that
>> was lost. That system is looking for an
>
>
> The case is a resend of a message which has not been acked because the
> message is held
> on the receiver side waiting for an ack.
>
> How does the receiver rmp reply to this resend, It MUST not ack because
> the message
> has not been delivered.
>
> I beliieve a special fault message, with the proper semantics, should be
> send back immediately
> to stop the sender from resending, since the message was already received.
>
> How would you recommend to handle this case?
>
> Tom Rutt
...
