- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 15:52:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: jacek@systinet.com (Jacek Kopecky)
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> See above. I understand that an SMTP error like "message > rejected" is useful, but it's useful in the same way as the > operating system's error "cannot open socket". The availability > of the first-hop status does not constitute an ack as in > "one-way-with-acks MEP". I understand, and agree, as it was what I meant by "hop-by-hop". My point was that SMTP has no notion of end-to-end request/response or acking. > > > Oh, I forgot to add that I'd in fact like to see a one-way MEP, > > > but without the ACKs. > > > > I was considering mentioning this. It's really the degenerate MEP, > > because it's the pattern that the envelope uses without a binding. > > I agree that giving it a URI would be a good thing though. > > I wouldn't use the word degenerate, I think the common name is > fire-and-forget. As UNIT_DATA in the abstract model, this is the > building block, the basis, not a degeneration of something more > complex. Ok, poor choice of adjectives. 8-) But I wasn't suggesting that we call it that, only pointing out that it is, in a sense, the "base MEP" from which all other MEPs derive. 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 15:47:42 UTC