[BXXPwg] proposal for 1:N interactions
Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:00:55 -0700
>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
Thanks for the clarification about the architecture. This whole 1:N
interactions thing may take a little work for me to see how it fits.
I had been focusing on the design points in the BXXP framework
clearly aimed at establishing communications between two *authorized*
peers, potentially with transport layer security.
I had forgotten (*sigh*) that BXXP guarantees reliable delivery of
all its frames, and that this is quite a different thing from the
guarantee that TCP offers in reliably delivering all its octets.
This is why there is a need to send an acknowledgement in 1:0
interactions "for end-to-end correctness"-- when the transport
reports an error in reliably delivering octets, they're needed to
sort out which MSG frames were and were not correctly delivered
before the error occurred.
I'm awake again.
j h woodyatt <email@example.com>