View Issue Details
ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0002001 | 10000-004: Services | public | 2012-04-12 20:48 | 2012-04-23 16:15 | |
Reporter | Assigned To | Matthias Damm | |||
Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | always |
Status | closed | Resolution | fixed | ||
Fixed in Version | 1.02 | ||||
Summary | 0002001: 5.13.2.2 CreateSubscription Parameters Table 83: Priority field clarification | ||||
Description | CMPWG 4-12-2012: The Priority of a subscription is currently described as: "Indicates the relative priority of the Subscription. When more than one Subscription needs to send Notifications, the Server should dequeue a Publish request to the Subscription with the highest priority number. For Subscriptions with equal priority the Server should dequeue Publish requests in a round-robin fashion. When the keep-alive period expires for a Subscription it shall take precedence regardless of its priority, in order to prevent the Subscription from expiring. This explanation does not describe how to prevent a subscription from never being serviced, except when its keep alive period matures. Here's a pseudo of our current thoughts/concerns:
How about when you scale this up to 3 subscriptions with priorities: 10, 20, and 30 etc. | ||||
Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
Commit Version | |||||
Fix Due Date | |||||
|
Discussed in F2F Boston. "When the keep-alive period expires for a Subscription it shall take precedence regardless of its priority, in order to prevent the Subscription from expiring." This text should be removed. The expected behaviour is to just allow the subscription to timeout (both the server and client will detect the timeout without a message). In addition the server should generate an event that other clients can detect that a subscription timed out and ideally the server should also have a counter that tracks the number of Timeouts that occur. |
|
Based on this proposal it seems that subscription priorities will almost-certainly cause lower-priority subscriptions to never be able to publish their data. Is that right? do we really want that? |
|
Removed sentence in document "OPC UA Part 4 - Services RC 1.02.16 Specification.doc" |
|
Reviewed and agreed to change in telecon. |
Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
---|---|---|---|
2012-04-12 20:48 |
|
New Issue | |
2012-04-12 22:11 | Paul Hunkar | Note Added: 0003558 | |
2012-04-12 22:12 | Paul Hunkar | Status | new => assigned |
2012-04-12 22:12 | Paul Hunkar | Assigned To | => Matthias Damm |
2012-04-13 18:00 |
|
Note Added: 0003572 | |
2012-04-23 16:12 | Matthias Damm | Status | assigned => resolved |
2012-04-23 16:12 | Matthias Damm | Resolution | open => fixed |
2012-04-23 16:12 | Matthias Damm | Note Added: 0003612 | |
2012-04-23 16:15 | Jim Luth | Status | resolved => closed |
2012-04-23 16:15 | Jim Luth | Note Added: 0003613 | |
2012-04-23 16:15 | Jim Luth | Fixed in Version | => 1.02 |