W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2001

RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries

From: Dick Brooks <dick@8760.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 12:02:11 -0600
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <NDBBIOBLMLCDOHCHIKMGMECNFEAA.dick@8760.com>
Stuart,

> So is that a plea for simple single-hop messaging?

Yes, in the interest of short term convergence with "other" protocols. Later
phases may evolve beyond
single-hop, but I believe it would be prudent to adopt KISS principles for
V1 and evolve over time.


Dick Brooks
Group 8760
110 12th Street North
Birmingham, AL 35203
dick@8760.com
205-250-8053
Fax: 205-250-8057
http://www.8760.com/

InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2001 11:44 AM
> To: 'dick@8760.com'
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries
>
>
> Hi Dick,
>
> So is that a plea for simple single-hop messaging?
>
> Regards
>
> Stuart
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dick Brooks [mailto:dick@8760.com]
> > Sent: 09 February 2001 15:47
> > To: Martin Gudgin; Williams, Stuart; Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (E-mail);
> > Jean-Jacques Moreau (E-mail); John Ibbotson (E-mail); Krishna Sankar
> > (E-mail); Lynne Thompson (E-mail); Marc Hadley (E-mail); Mark Baker
> > (E-mail); Nick Smilonich; Oisin Hurley (E-mail); Scott Isaacson
> > (E-mail); Yves Lafon (E-mail)
> > Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: [AMG] Thoughts about path and intermediaries
> >
> >
> > Gudg wrote:
> >
> > >Conversely if the XML Protocol Layer does NOT support the notion of a
> path
> > >then it becomes inherently single-hop. In this latter case path becomes
> an
> > >application level construct and not part of the core definition of the
> XML
> > >Protocol. This would simplify the core definition of XML Protocol while
> > >still allowing applications to layer intermediary processing on top of
> XML
> > >Protocol.
> >
> > This is virtually identical to the discussion occurring within ebXML
> > regarding intermediaries.
> > A point-to-point protocol can be used in a "iterative" fashion between
> > multihop exchanges and this
> > makes the protocol/state machine significantly simpler to
> > implement. The
> > trade-off is the loss of "protocol"
> > support for administrative and other functions that cross
> > intermediaries.
> > However, as you indicated,
> > some of this functionality can be supplied as an application level
> > construct.
> >
> > A good metaphor to help understand the relative complexities of the two
> > approaches is to compare IP routing(packet switching) to SS7 routing
> > (circuit based - used for call setup between telco switches).
> >
> >
> > Dick Brooks
> > Group 8760
> > 110 12th Street North
> > Birmingham, AL 35203
> > dick@8760.com
> > 205-250-8053
> > Fax: 205-250-8057
> > http://www.8760.com/
> >
> > InsideAgent - Empowering e-commerce solutions
Received on Friday, 9 February 2001 13:07:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT