[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions
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
>> This is nice if a session aborts so that it is know if the MSG was
>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'.