- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 14:37:52 -0000
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Hi Mark, Not fundementally opposed to your suggestion... but there are a couple of buts.... First question comes back to whether doing an email/smtp/pop binding as a proof-of-concept or as a real fully spec'd. For proof-of-concept reuse of a feature (the RR MEP) seem's like a good thing. I guess that on a proof-of-concept basis creating an additional MEP would also exercise the framework. Ironically, I rather like the one-way with correlation/causality captured in the AM and would have like that to have been our first 'documented' MEP rather than request/response - but we chose to do request/response. Email 'Message-ID' and 'In-Reply-To' headers give a means for marking causality. On hop-by-hop acknowledgement, I think that's a QoS difference in that the disposition at the sender of sending a message may be: known success; known failure; or indeterminate. More reliable infrastructures provide more certainty, less reliable infrastructures gives more indeterminate results. It's also interesting that you focus (as would I) on the hop-by-hop nature of the acknowledgement (if not the whole MEP) infering ultimately successful delivery from hop-by-hop acknowledgements would not be a good idea, they represent more of a transfer of responsibility to the next SOAP Node. Regards Stuart > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: 14 March 2002 06:23 > To: xml-dist-app@w3.org > Subject: Need new MEP for SMTP binding > > > 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 > -- > Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. > Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com > http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com >
Received on Thursday, 14 March 2002 09:39:20 UTC