[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions

Huston Franklin HUSTON@novell.com
Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:11:25 -0600

>>> 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.

>But this doesn't work.  You won't know whether or not the msg has been
>processed if you haven't received the acknowledgement yet.

>Anyway, presumably a protocol won't use 1:0 interactions if it needs
>an acknowlegement of whether the message was processed.

Thanks for the correction, I meant 'delivered' not 'processed'.