RE: T2 - Assertions and Questions

[Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>]

If X intends the message to go to Y but is not concerned with what happens
between C and Y, it either isn't reliable messaging.  An alternative view
is that C is the To party and Y, perhaps, is C's subcontractor and indeed
should be invisible to X.  Similarly with X and B.

Regards,
Marty

*************************************************************************************

Martin W. Sachs
IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
P. O. B. 704
Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
*************************************************************************************



David Smiley <dsmiley@mercator.com> on 08/14/2001 11:47:21 AM

To:   "'Dan Weinreb '" <dlw@exceloncorp.com>
cc:   "'ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org '" <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject:  RE: T2 - Assertions and Questions



Dan,

You have interpreted my meaning correctly. Take your example:

X <-> A <-> B <-> C <-> Y

where the "chasm" is between B and C.

X sends messages intended for Y to C. X is not concerned with what happens
after successfully delivering the message to C.

Y sends messages intended for X to B. Y is not concerned with what happens
after successfully delivering the message to B and has no awareness of A
whatsoever. A is X's business.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Weinreb
To: David Smiley
Cc: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: 8/14/2001 10:37 AM
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

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