- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 14:57:20 +0100
- To: dick@8760.com
- CC: Martin Gudgin <marting@develop.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Dick Brooks wrote: > 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. > > 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). Your analogy is useful, but may be an over simplifiication. In particular, it misses the case where the path is predefined (as in SS7), but routing is done nonetheless on a next-hop basis (as in IP), the next-hop being computed from the path itself (XMLP w/ path) rather than by a table lookup (IP). In this "3rd" scenario, you do not need to reserve a circuit in advance (contrarily to SS7). Sorry for the late response; I'm gradually catching up with email. Jean-Jacques.
Received on Monday, 19 February 2001 08:58:25 UTC