[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions

Huston Franklin HUSTON@novell.com
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 10:47:19 -0600


>>         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.

I don't know about it being necessary to support 1:N interaction but it is nice to have errors specified in one manner rather than having RPY, ANS, and NULL all report errors.

>>     - 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.

This is nice if a session aborts so that it is know if the MSG was processed.

--Huston