[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: T2 - Assertions and Questions
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:20:48 -0400 From: David Smiley <dsmiley@mercator.com> This is interesting. So suppose we have end parties X and Y, and they're communicating through three intermediarites A, B, and C: X <-> A <-> B <-> C <-> Y If I understand you correctly, one of these hops is considered the "chasm"; let's say it's the hop between B and C. Then: Assertion #2: The To Party defines the location where messages intended for it are to be sent. In other words, when X and Y agree on a CPA, the CPA will assert that the communication-protocol-level address for party Y is the address that actually talks to C; and the address given for X is really B's address. Is that what you're saying? Assertion #3C: For our purposes, there is no such thing as a multi-hop message. Question #1: Can we eliminate any references to multi-hop or intermediate MSH from the spec? As I understand it, you're not saying that messages actually never take multiple hops, but rather than it *seems* as if they don't, "for our purposes". So if I'm understanding correctly, the way I would phrase Assertion #3C is "At the level of abstraction of the Message Services protocol, there is no concept of a multi-hop message". The interactions between X, A, and B (and those between Y and C) are handled at a lower level of abstraction, hidden from the higher level. At the higher level, X, A, and B together looks like a single entity; there is some lower level that talks about how X, A, and B communicate among themselves. Is that the idea? -- Dan
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC