- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 11:33:05 -0700
- To: "'Geoff Arnold'" <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
OK by me. I was just giving it a shot, for what it was worth. Perhaps you could flesh out a better explanation of what reliable messaging is? As I keep saying, I think it is important because there is a very widespread perception that security and reliable messaging are the hot spots for making web services practically usable for business processes. The requirements doc talks a lot about security ... -----Original Message----- From: Geoff Arnold [mailto:Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, August 28, 2002 12:49 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Champions for Draft-status requirements? / D-AC017 On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 01:06 PM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > One of the solutions to this problem, I think, is to > define reliable messaging a bit more accurately, for example by > replacing > terms like "reliably exchange" (below) with something like "reduce the > uncertainty of the message transmission to a practically acceptable > level". The phrase "practically acceptable level" seems to be inviting trouble. Why not simply talk about measurable reliability levels (i.e. QoS)? Curious, Geoff
Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 14:33:17 UTC