but the one's with acks are oh so much more interesting:) Jacek Kopecky wrote: > Oh, I forgot to add that I'd in fact like to see a one-way MEP, > but without the ACKs. > > Jacek Kopecky > > Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox) > http://www.systinet.com/ > > > > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Mark Baker wrote: > > > Currently, the only MEP that's been defined is request/response. In > > starting work on the SMTP protocol binding however, I feel that it's > > best to avoid request/response because SMTP is not a request/response > > protocol. To do request/response with SMTP would necessarily be > > tunneling, and a major security issue. > > > > Would there be any objections to us defining a new MEP that represents > > a one way message with hop-by-hop acknowledgement, like SMTP? I see > > this as being reusable for any binding to a message queue based transfer > > protocol. > > > > MB > > > > >Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 08:25:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:47 UTC