Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues

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

Dan,

It's not a contradiction.  Both scenarios are plausible.  My recollection
of Arpanet is that an IMP was essentially a communication adapter that is
connected to a host and the network was among the IMPs.  With that picture,
an IMP for an ebXML network would contain the MSH and the combination of
host and IMP would unspecified.  The combination of host and IMP would be
the node on the IMP network.  The earlier scenario was specifically for the
case where the IMs are connected to the endpoints via ebXML and the IMs may
or may not be interconnected by ebXML links. In other words, I view the IMP
as a communication adapter whereas the IMs we have been discussing are
autonomous systems.

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



Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com> on 09/11/2001 04:44:00 PM

Please respond to Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>

To:   Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   david.burdett@commerceone.com, chris.ferris@east.sun.com,
      arvola@tibco.com, ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject:  Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues



   Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 14:34:03 -0400
   From: Martin W Sachs <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>

Wait a minute.  In earlier mail you said:

      The problem is that there is nothing requiring that the link between
B and
      C be an ebXML path.  Therefore both of our previous comments that all
IM
      nodes must have two MSHs are not correct.  In the simplest case (dumb
store
      and forward only), we can consider the combination of B and C as a
single
      intermediary ("virtual ebXML IM") with what goes on between them an
      internal matter that is outside the scope of ebXML.

In later mail you said:

   MWS:  Actually, this is the inverse of my example.  If B and C are
   the IMPs, the B-C link is the ebXML link and the A-B and C-D links are
   however the IMPs are connected to the hosts.

It seems that these points contradict each other.  Am I misunderstanding?

-- Dan

----------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>