W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2003

RE: RM and Intermediaries

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 12:24:09 -0500
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E401E6301B@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: "'www-ws-arch@w3.org '" <www-ws-arch@w3.org>


-----Original Message-----
From: Ricky Ho
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 1/25/2003 10:49 AM
Subject: RM and Intermediaries

> S --> i1 --> i2 --> R

> Do i1 and i2 have to understand RM ? or RM is just an end-to-end 
> handshaking between S and R ?  If so, can S pick a different path in its
> message resend ?

As best I understand it, this is the main use case for RM at the SOAP level
- end to end RM rather than the point to point RM. So long as the RM headers
are not mustUnderstand=true (or the intermediaries are transport-level
intermediaries rather than SOAP intermediaries), the intermediaries can
participate or not participate in the protocol, and the inter-point
transports can be reliable or unreliable as reality dictates.  Still, the
application gets the advantages of RM as if it were guaranteed by a single
TCP connection, a MOM, or whatever.

Does this seem reasonable?
Received on Saturday, 25 January 2003 12:24:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:02 UTC