[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:26:35 -0700
"Huston Franklin" <HUSTON@novell.com> wrote:
>>> - 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
>This is nice if a session aborts so that it is know if the MSG was processed.
Okay... but if it is "nice to know" that the MSG was processed, is it
still a 1:0 interaction at that point?
It seems to me that either one or the other of these two statements is true:
+ A peer sending a message may be uninterested in whether the
message is ever received by the other peer or discarded by the
transport or the network.
+ A peer sending a message is always interested in whether the
message is received by the other peer, in which case at least one
response is required.
I think the former statement is true. I have seen many application
protocols in which peers push messages without having any need to
know whether they are received or discarded.
j h woodyatt <firstname.lastname@example.org>