Patrick Yee wrote:
>
>> At the Redwood City meeting last May we came to general agreement
>> that the protocol
>> requires persistence to work (e.g, persistence of ids for duplicate
>> elimintation, persistence of
>> message contents for ordered delivery). However, some users might we
>> willing to accept
>> protocol failure under specific circumstances which are agreed witht
>> the system supplier (e.g, if the battery is not kept charged on a
>> cell phone, it might loose its "persistence" capability).
>>
>> Thus this preagreed limit for persistence time is subject to user
>> contract, since it involves an
>> argreement as to what conditions are acceptable for tolerating
>> protocol failure.
>>
>> I hope this helps.
>
>
>
> I see. That's fine for tolerating protocol failure. Now, the
> persistence is not only for the purpose of reliable protocol only, but
> also for the purpose of status query. If I said I support status
> query, it will be unreasonable for me to delete the persistence, since
> the spec doesn't indicate a deadline which I can delete the
> persistence after that..
The status query is part of our protocol. This everything I stated
holds for it as well.
In some cases, where persistence has failed n a receiver RMP, the status
query protocol will fail as well.
Tom Rutt
>
>
> Am I on the right track?
>
> Regards, -Patrick
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster
> of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsrm/members/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
--
----------------------------------------------------
Tom Rutt email: ;
Tel: +1 732 801 5744 Fax: +1 732 774 5133
