Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues

[Dan Weinreb <dlw@exceloncorp.com>]

   Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:18:31 -0400
   From: "Martin W Sachs" <mwsachs@us.ibm.com>

   It's not a contradiction.  Both scenarios are plausible.  

OK, both are plausible, but I didn't see where you switched between
one and the other, so I'm having trouble following you.  But I think
we have to agree, when we design ebXML MS, whether what we're
designing is the IM-to-IM protocol, or not.

*If* we want to allow a scenario of A - B - C - D where B and C are
IM's and the B and C can use whatever protocol they want, *then* I
don't think we should characterize ebXML MS as the IM-to-IM protocol.
Rather, ebXML MS defines the A - B communication (when it's talking
about HTTP addresses), and the A - D communication (when it's talking
about service/action), but not the B - C communication.

-- Dan