Uploaded image for project: 'OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC'
  1. OASIS Message Queuing Telemetry Transport (MQTT) TC
  2. MQTT-23

Should Message Identifier be called as Packet Identifier

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 3.1.1
    • Fix Version/s: 3.1.1
    • Component/s: core
    • Labels:
      None
    • Proposal:
      Hide

      Replace the terms such as "Message Identifier" with "Packet Identifier" in all cases

      Show
      Replace the terms such as "Message Identifier" with "Packet Identifier" in all cases

      Description

      As Part of issue MQTT-17, it was proposed and agreed to use term "MQTT Control Packet" consistently and not "MQTT Command Message" in the specification.

      However this change causes a problem in understanding of another term "message Identifier". Comments and discussion may be needed on the use of word Message Identifier and if it should be called as Packet Identifier. I am opening this JIRA issue for further discussion in TC calls.

      example - from WD-04, line 383 - 385

      "A non zero message identifier (MessageId) MUST be present in the variable header of the following MQTT command messages: PUBLISH(where Qos!=0), PUBACK, PUBREC, PUBREL, PUBCOMP, SUBSCRIBE, SUBACK, UNSUBSCRIBE, UNSUBACK "

      In WD-05

      "A non zero message identifier (MessageId) MUST be present in the variable header of the following MQTT Control Packets: PUBLISH(where Qos!=0), PUBACK, PUBREC, PUBREL, PUBCOMP, SUBSCRIBE, SUBACK, UNSUBSCRIBE, UNSUBACK "

      Should message Identifier be called as Packet Identifier ?

        Attachments

          Activity

          Hide
          locke David Locke (Inactive) added a comment -

          Using something like packet identifier might help avoid some confusion that has been seen around message identifier. The identifier is clearly scoped as only being used for the wire flow and is not intended to be used by the messaging server as a unique identifier of the message with much wider scope. In many messaging systems the term message identifier is used in this way so changing the terminology could help disambiguate things. This should not be used as the reason to change but might be a side effect

          Show
          locke David Locke (Inactive) added a comment - Using something like packet identifier might help avoid some confusion that has been seen around message identifier. The identifier is clearly scoped as only being used for the wire flow and is not intended to be used by the messaging server as a unique identifier of the message with much wider scope. In many messaging systems the term message identifier is used in this way so changing the terminology could help disambiguate things. This should not be used as the reason to change but might be a side effect
          Hide
          raphcohn Raphael Cohen (Inactive) added a comment -

          I'd second the comments above. When I first read the spec, I did mistake this field for an unique message identifier, rather than one for a delivery.

          Show
          raphcohn Raphael Cohen (Inactive) added a comment - I'd second the comments above. When I first read the spec, I did mistake this field for an unique message identifier, rather than one for a delivery.
          Hide
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment -

          Note, one possible side effect is that a client implementation which has a getMessageId() method should change to getPacketId() to remain consistent with the specification.

          Show
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment - Note, one possible side effect is that a client implementation which has a getMessageId() method should change to getPacketId() to remain consistent with the specification.
          Hide
          knolleary Nick O'Leary (Inactive) added a comment -

          Agree with all of Dave's points.

          The change from getMessageId() to getPacketId() is an unfortunate, but likely necessary side-effect.

          Show
          knolleary Nick O'Leary (Inactive) added a comment - Agree with all of Dave's points. The change from getMessageId() to getPacketId() is an unfortunate, but likely necessary side-effect.
          Hide
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment -

          discussed on call 20.06.2013

          Show
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment - discussed on call 20.06.2013
          Hide
          andrew_banks Andrew Banks (Inactive) added a comment -

          Resolved globally in draft06

          Show
          andrew_banks Andrew Banks (Inactive) added a comment - Resolved globally in draft06
          Hide
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment -

          Addressed in WD06

          Show
          coppen Richard Coppen (Inactive) added a comment - Addressed in WD06

            People

            • Assignee:
              andrew_banks Andrew Banks (Inactive)
              Reporter:
              ragupta2 Rahul Gupta (Inactive)
            • Watchers:
              0 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved: