Re: comments on 30/3/2001 AM draft

Please see below.

Cheers,

Chris

Jean-Jacques Moreau wrote:
> 
> christopher ferris wrote:
> 
> > [...] as an intermediary may add blocks to the message, the fault may not
> > necessarily lie with the originator of the message, but in the intermediary
<snip/>
> 
> Consequently, IMO, if a message fails, and that message contains any intermediary-block, then *both*
> the intermediary *and* the originator need to be informed, regardless of whether the block was added
> by the originator or the intermediary. They are both interested in finding out that the message
> failed.

Agreed.

> 
> Now, is this whole paragraph not in contradiction anyway with other parts of the AM that say XMLP is
> best-effort/one-way only?

Interesting question, no? I think that the AM needs to address fault
reporting
both at the AM and binding levels.

> 
> > 3) In section 3.1.3, the assertion that the Correlation parameter references
> > a message previously forwarded seems to eliminate the possibility that
> > a message might be related to another that takes an alternate path between
> > source and destination. e.g.
> >         a->b->c and c->d->a   [...]
> 
> Unless the MessageRef parameter is initially set by the originator? (and intermediaries use
> (originator, MessageRef) to correlate messages).
> 
> Alternatively, the path may be set to:
>         a->b->d->c and c->d->b->a
> with d being transparent on the way forward, b on the way back.

Yes, but my point was that MessageRef is a "local reference" or "handle"
as Stuart has stated in previous postings. My question is then,
where/how does the
intermediary get this from if the message has never passed this way
before?

I suppose that one could argue that if an intermediary hadn't seen the
message
before, then the MessageRef would be meaningless to it, but I think I
could
make a case otherwise. Certainly, as a designer of an intermediary, I
might
make that mistake and wind up with software that didn't function
correctly
some of the time.

> 
> I agree with your other comments.
> 
> Jean-Jacques.