RE: Reliable messaging

Specifically, sender can tell the recipient to ignore it should it arrive.

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

"Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> wrote on 08/29/2002 
04:53:05 PM:

> One way you might be able to determine that a message was NOT received, 
would be to send a query 
> to the destination that should have receieved the message to ask if they 
had received it.
> 
> However you still have the problem that the destination might still 
receive the message after they
> have sent a response to your query indicating that they had not. In this 
case, what should the 
> behavior of the destination be?
> 
> David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 1:29 PM
> To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; Mark Baker
> Cc: Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Reliable messaging

> I know of mechanisms that, if successful, will assure the sender that 
the message HAS been 
> received.  I do not know of any mechanism that will allow the sender to 
know that the message has 
> NOT been received.  The ebXML spec most certainly does not.  So I 
believe that the word "whether" 
> below is inappropriate.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, August 29, 2002 3:25 PM
> To: Mark Baker
> Cc: Burdett, David; www-ws-arch@w3.org; www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Reliable messaging

> 
> #1 in my definition reads: 
> 
> the ability of a sender to be able to determine whether a given 
> message has been received by its intended receiver ... 
> 
> It doesn't speak of a mechanism, but there are many means of achieving 
this. 
> 
> Cheers, 
> 
> Christopher Ferris
> Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
> email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
> phone: +1 508 234 3624 
> 
> www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 08/29/2002 04:01:41 PM:
> 
> > 
> > On Thu, Aug 29, 2002 at 11:48:41AM -0700, Burdett, David wrote:
> > > I like your definitions,  however, they do not address what I think 
is the
> > > certainty that although you can be sure a message was received, you 
can
> > > never be absolutely sure that it was not.
> > 
> > How can you be sure that a message was received?  Because there's 
always
> > a chance that the response to a message doesn't make it, and leaves 
the
> > two parties out of synch (i.e. two army problem).
> > 
> > MB
> > -- 
> > Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.               distobj@acm.org
> > http://www.markbaker.ca        http://www.idokorro.com
> >