Jacques,
I am not sure what you mean. A message may be resent after the
receiving application has processed it. The previous acknowledgment
could easily have been lost. In effect, the sender is performing the
resend in order to retrieve the missing acknowledgment. Of course, that
sender does not know or care whether the original message or the
acknowledgment was lost.
This all means we need acknowledgments for all messages sent reliably
whether duplicates or not.
thanx,
doug
On 16-Dec-03 14:31, Jacques Durand wrote:
> + 1 on no faults for dups.
>
> But the end of your mail is ambiguous on one point:
>
> >I would propose we do not add these dupOfWhatever faults in the first
> >place and simply return acknowledgements.
>
> given the Ack semantics agreed on (ack-on-delivery),
> no acks will be sent for dups - which is fine.
>
> Jacques
...
