[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions

Marshall Rose mrose+mtr.netnews@dbc.mtview.ca.us
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:02:56 -0700

> It seems to me that either one or the other of these two statements is
>     + 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.
> ...XOR...
>     + 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.

i think that we're not going to solve all problems for all communication
models using bxxp. if you're really using the former model, you should
probably be using something that sits on top of udp or rtp or t/tcp or ...

i think that the design points in the beep framework are biased toward
reliability and that means that things get acknowledged. even in the 1:0
case, a reliable transport is still going to have to send back acks. it's
not much of a leap of faith to view the latter model as consistent with