RE: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in QualityOfServiceInfo

[David Fischer <david@drummondgroup.com>]

I have to think RM can be both.  I would also think that, if they could, the IM
should try to match the RM request of the end-to-end although we can't require
this.  I believe the whole point is to be able to trace if possible (remember
the FedEx Black Box discussion).

If RM is only end-to-end, why do we even need the Via?  I think we have to allow
for all-of-the-above.

David Fischer
Drummond Group.

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM [mailto:Chris.Ferris@Sun.COM]On Behalf Of
christopher ferris
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2001 1:04 PM
To: Scott Hinkelman
Cc: HUGHES,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex1); ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: T2 SyncReply and ReliableMessagingMethod in
QualityOfServiceInfo


Scott Hinkelman wrote:
>
> I agree. RM is From <-> To.
> However, does this imply that if a CPA is used, and IMs are in the
> picture that multiparty (if an IM is a party) CPA is required? Seems to me.
>
> Scott Hinkelman, Senior Software Engineer
> XML Industry Enablement
> IBM e-business Standards Strategy
> 512-823-8097 (TL 793-8097) (Cell: 512-940-0519)
> srh@us.ibm.com, Fax: 512-838-1074
>
<snip/>

I disagree. The RM protocol is point to point. The QOS characteristic
is certainly and most definitely end-to-end. There is a clear distinction
in my mind between the two.

Cheers,

Chris

------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
"unsubscribe" in the body to: ebxml-msg-request@lists.oasis-open.org