Bug 1152589

Thanks for the logical separation, now it makes more sense. I have still noted following two discrepancies:

1.) I realized that the footnote was completely wrong (sorry for late notifying), following description is more appropriate:
[a] If at-most-once is requested, unreliable is used. There is a possibility that messages may be lost.
[b] If exactly-once is requested, at-least-once is used. There is a possibility that messages may be redelivered and the application itself must handle duplicates. 

Or we can completely remove the supplemental text, because the possibility of message loss and re-delivery is already described above in the table. So, the footnote may list just:

[a] If at-most-once is requested, unreliable is used.
[b] If exactly-once is requested, at-least-once is used.


2.) Following sentence (in the table) do not make much sense to me:
"Reliability indicates the level of reliability that the sender or receiver."

It should probably be something like following:
Reliability indicates the level of link reliability requested by the sender or receiver.

(In reply to Petr Matousek from comment #3)
> Thanks for the logical separation, now it makes more sense. I have still
> noted following two discrepancies:
> 
> 1.) I realized that the footnote was completely wrong (sorry for late
> notifying), following description is more appropriate:
> [a] If at-most-once is requested, unreliable is used. There is a possibility
> that messages may be lost.
> [b] If exactly-once is requested, at-least-once is used. There is a
> possibility that messages may be redelivered and the application itself must
> handle duplicates. 
> 
> Or we can completely remove the supplemental text, because the possibility
> of message loss and re-delivery is already described above in the table. So,
> the footnote may list just:
> 
> [a] If at-most-once is requested, unreliable is used.
> [b] If exactly-once is requested, at-least-once is used.
> 
> 
> 2.) Following sentence (in the table) do not make much sense to me:
> "Reliability indicates the level of reliability that the sender or receiver."
> 
> It should probably be something like following:
> Reliability indicates the level of link reliability requested by the sender
> or receiver.

And this is why information presentation is so important. So we can "see" the content. :D

I've taken the approach where we strip down the footnotes of their supplemental text, and let the main table body text define behavior. 

Thanks for the feedback as always Petr. Link in Comment #2 is valid for viewing the changes.

Content Approved.

Since the problem described in this bug report should be
resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a
resolution of ERRATA.

For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.

If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.

https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2015-0805.html