[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: RM - Definition needed!
Arvola, I agree with your list, and I absolutely think we should implement RM in that order, as you pointed out was in v0.93. I also have to applaud Ian's comments though. We as a team need to support RM in exactly the way Ian has described, so, for the ends, RM "has nothing to do with the quality, existence or number of intermediate nodes in the path." This does not mean we cannot ALSO tell the IMs how they can achieve that -- i.e. your list. I must disagree with Chris that this would go in v2.0. It needs to be fixed in the present spec. What we have now IMO will not work. Regards, David Fischer Drummond Group. -----Original Message----- From: Arvola Chan [mailto:arvola@tibco.com] Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 12:09 PM To: ian.c.jones@bt.com; ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: RM - Definition needed! Ian: I don't quite agree with the second part of your statement: "..., it has nothing todo with the quality, existence or number of intermediate nodes in the path." How reliable messaging between the sending MSH and target MSH can be achieved (i.e., implemented) will very much depend on whether there are intermediaries in between, and the quality of service they can support. I still think that the approach taken in the 0.93 version of the spec, i.e., dividing the specification into 1. Single-hop reliable messaging 2. Multi-hop reliable messaging without intermediate acknowledgements (i.e., none of the intermediaries adopt the reliable messaging behavior) 3. Multi-hop reliable messaging with intermediate acknowledgements (i.e., all of the intermediaries adopt the reliable messaging behavior) is the right way to go. Cases 1 and 2 are straightforward to implement. Case 3 is the only that requires some work, but I think it can be solved without some of the complexities that David Burdette has introduced in his recent proposal. -Arvola -----Original Message----- From: ian.c.jones@bt.com <ian.c.jones@bt.com> To: ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org> Date: Thursday, August 16, 2001 9:21 AM Subject: RM - Definition needed! >It has been suggested that a useful step in the RM discussion is a simple >BUT succinct definition of what RM means. I agree that this would be useful >to "scope" the discussion as many other issues tend to drift in and out of >this topic. > >As a start to the discussion to define in 1 paragraph or less - I would like >2 or at most 3 sentences, the start is: >"RM is a protocol between the sending and target MSHs to get an indication >that a message was delivered to the far end... pointedly, it has nothing to >do with the quality, existence or number of intermediate nodes in the path." > >This is a slightly re-worded contribution for an external party but I think >encapsulates the sort of definition we need. > >Comments !! > >Ian Jones >Chair OASIS ebXML Messaging Services TC > >Tel: +44 (0)29 2072 4063 >Fax: +44 (0)29 2045 8781 >Email: ian.c.jones@bt.com > > >---------------------------------------------------------------- >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl> ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC