Re: Constraints for multicast

noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> David Hull writes:
> 
>> "The proposal to allow multicast suggests that the API might need to
>> allow multiple addresses."  This is certainly not the intent of the 
>> proposed text.  To take an example, if I send email to {dmh@tibco.
>> com, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com}, that would be two instances of the
>> MEP.  If I send email to {xml-dist-app@w3.org}, that would be one 
>> instance, just as if I sent to {dmh@tibco.com}.  In other words, 
>> there is exactly one ImmediateDestination per MEP instance, just as 
>> the table says.
> 
> When I send an email to a local distribution list (e.g. to: xml-interest 
> or some such) it's not uncommon for my mailer to pop up a warning in the 
> spirit of the following, one I would never see in sending to an 
> individual:
> 
>         Warning: email addresses BobSmith, MaryJones, TommySlim not found, 
> continue sending to the other 53 users on this list?
> 

Isn't this a binding specific error?
One could get a simliar error when sending an email to an address which 
is not a mailing list (without the question about 'continue sending'). 
Since we are really talking about fire-and-forget, I don't think these 
errors or warnings have a relevance at the MEP-level.

I do share Noah's concern about feature-creep and finishing up our 
one-way MEP work. I would prefer that our one-way MEP allow folks to use 
it for multicast (our MEP spec should not prevent it), but we shouldn't 
go into modeling it explicitly.

-Anish
--


<snip/>

Received on Wednesday, 30 August 2006 17:39:14 UTC