W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Need new MEP for SMTP binding

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:52:11 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200203142052.PAA06873@markbaker.ca>
To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> See above. I understand that an SMTP error like "message
> rejected" is useful, but it's useful in the same way as the
> operating system's error "cannot open socket". The availability
> of the first-hop status does not constitute an ack as in
> "one-way-with-acks MEP".

I understand, and agree, as it was what I meant by "hop-by-hop".  My
point was that SMTP has no notion of end-to-end request/response or
acking.

>  > > Oh, I forgot to add that I'd in fact like to see a one-way MEP, 
>  > > but without the ACKs.
>  >
>  > I was considering mentioning this.  It's really the degenerate MEP,
>  > because it's the pattern that the envelope uses without a binding.
>  > I agree that giving it a URI would be a good thing though.
> 
>  I wouldn't use the word degenerate, I think the common name is 
> fire-and-forget. As UNIT_DATA in the abstract model, this is the 
> building block, the basis, not a degeneration of something more 
> complex.

Ok, poor choice of adjectives. 8-)  But I wasn't suggesting that we call
it that, only pointing out that it is, in a sense, the "base MEP" from
which all other MEPs derive.

MB
-- 
Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc.
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.      mbaker@planetfred.com
http://www.markbaker.ca   http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 15:47:42 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:09 GMT