ebxml-msg — archive

Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues

From: System
To: [email protected]
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 18:21:00 -0000

Dan, I agree almost completely. We certainly can't get into specifying the messaging protocol between B and C if that interaction is not according to ebXML. However, if we expect reliable messaging to work between A and D while B and C are using a different protocol, we still have to say something about what is expected of B and C and their interaction in order to support reliable messaging between A and D. To repeat the example from IBM's HTTPR that I have already given a couple of times: "It is assumed that intermediaries store and forward messages reliably." If we do not state the assumptions on the intermediaries, all bets are off as to whether reliable messaging works across the intermediaries. 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 <[email protected]> on 09/11/2001 05:42:05 PM Please respond to Dan Weinreb <[email protected]> To: Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM@IBMUS cc: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Re: T2 PLEAE READ - Suggested solution to RM Issues Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2001 17:18:31 -0400 From: "Martin W Sachs" <[email protected]> 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------- To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>