[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions

Greg Hudson ghudson@MIT.EDU
Mon, 28 Aug 2000 20:51:11 -0400


>         RSP split into RPY (positive), ANS/NULL (positive) and ERR
> (negative)

I'm a little puzzled by the RPY/ERR split.  It doesn't seem to be a
necessary change for 1:N interaction.

>     - 1:0 interactions still require an acknowledgement from the
> remote side:
>         otherwise, we could run out of msgno's
>         and it's probably needed for end-to-end correctness

Can the author expand on "probably needed for end-to-end correctness?"
Unless there is some reason to believe that acknowledgements are
always needed, this seems like an unfortunate consequence of the
design choices.  Especially since msgno is only present as a
consistency checking device when the underlying transport is
sequenced.