- From: Joseph Baysdon <jbaysdon@tibco.com>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jun 2003 14:49:17 -0400
- To: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
- CC: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, XMLP Public <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Jacek Kopecky wrote: >Jean-Jacques, > >Systinet's implementations would not be affected in any way if we made >the change you suggest. > >Personally, however, I prefer the current text. I view multicast as an >optimization of sending multiple messages as one up to a branching point >in the message path. This optimization is usable in environments where >it doesn't matter that the message is seen as one and not as many >messages. > >I think the 'an ultimate receiver' was meant to indicate that the >message may not actually reach the node, not that there may be multiple >such nodes. > >Best regards, > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect > Systinet Corporation > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > > > >On Fri, 2003-06-13 at 10:37, Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote: > > >>The following issue has been raised (e.g. [1]) on ws-arch: is there one >>and only one ultimate receiver, or can there be several ultimate >>receivers for the same message? >> >>The issue is that multicast bindings, for example, may be prohibited if >>there is only one single ultimate receiver. >> >>Currently, Part 1 specifies there can only be ONE ultimate receiver (THE >>ultimate receiver). An earlier version of Part 1 used to allow multiple >>receivers (AN ultimate receiver), as per the resolution to issue 103 [2]. >> >>It appears that when the resolution to issue 103 was implemented, not >>all occurences of "THE" were changes to "AN", and that an (unfortunate) >>editorial sanity check later replaced all instances of "AN" to "THE", >>instead of the contrary. >> >>We have two options at this stage: >> >>1) Go with whatever is in Part 1 today, considering that we are too late >>in the Recommendation process; or >> >>2) Reimplement the resolution to 103 (i.e. s/THE/AN/). >> >>I have a preference for option 2) above and consider that this is an >>editorial change only. However, I think we should first investigate >>whether this change is likely to (severely) impact current >>implementations. I don't think so, but at the same time I don't want to >>take the risk of delaying publication. >> >>I apologize for raising this issue so late in the Recommendation process. >> >>Pls remove xmlp-comments of any follow-up discussions. >> >>Jean-Jacques. >> >>[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jun/0118.html >>[2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x103 >> >> >> > > > > > We would prefer the second option. We plan to support multicast, and it is important that it be treated as a peer with unicast (no assumption that each message has a single receiver only). (Amy Lewis, thanks for the heads-up note.)
Received on Friday, 13 June 2003 14:52:48 UTC