- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 10:02:13 -0700
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- cc: "Dave Hollander" <dmh@contivo.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Oh yeah, layer 6. The real famous one. Sure, whatever you say. Seriously, you're probably right about the level -- I was just guessing. -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Monday, August 19, 2002 10:35 AM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Reliable Messaging: Division of Responsibilities (was RE: RES T, Conversations and Reliability) Hi Roger, On Thu, Aug 15, 2002 at 02:15:31PM -0400, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > I think that I am positioning this definition in the application > layer, which is more or less where I personally think that the > mechanism belongs. I think that's a fine definition of reliable messaging, but I disagree that what you've described is at the application layer, because the definition is independant of any application semantic. Or in other words, all messages, independant of their application layer meaning, are treated equivalently. To me, that's more of a layer 6 protocol. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred) Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Monday, 19 August 2002 13:02:41 UTC