RE: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: RES T, Conversations and Reliability)

Oh yeah, layer 6.  The real famous one.  Sure, whatever you say.

Seriously, you're probably right about the level -- I was just guessing.

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] 
Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:35 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: RES
T, Conversations and Reliability)


Hi Roger,

On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 02:15:31PM -0400, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> I think that I am positioning this definition in the application 
> layer, which is more or less where I personally think that the 
> mechanism belongs.

I think that's a fine definition of reliable messaging, but I disagree that
what you've described is at the application layer, because the definition is
independant of any application semantic.  Or in other words, all messages,
independant of their application layer meaning, are treated equivalently.
To me, that's more of a layer 6 protocol.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com