Fw: Confusion on RM

[iwasa <iwasa@fsc.fujitsu.com>]

All,

For your convenience, here is Reliable Messaging specification
ver0.080.
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200010/msg00004.html

And the following modification should be applied on Spec ver0.080,
because it was discussed at last TR&P teleconference on 10/5.
http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200010/msg00036.html

Regards,
Iwasa
-------------------------------------------------------
   Kazunori IWASA
   Industry Relations, Fujitsu Software Corporation
   3055 Orchard Drive, San Jose, CA 95134-2022
   TEL: +1(408)456-7983  FAX: +1(408)456-7930
   e-mail: iwasa@fs.fujitsu.com
-------------------------------------------------------
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philippe DeSmedt" <PDeSmedt@viquity.com>
To: "Ebxml-Poc" <ebxml-poc@lists.ebxml.org>
Cc: "'Nicholas Kassem'" <nick.kassem@eng.sun.com>
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:41 PM
Subject: RE: Confusion on RM


> All,
>
> A quick note to echo Nick's observations regarding reliable messaging.
> Please note that the matrix from the start had the question phrased as
> 'participant can communicate through reliable messaging (per ebXML TR&P
> Reliable Messaging spec)'. As Nick points out, it would be useful to read
> through v0.080 of that spec prior to the call on Thursday.
>
> Regards,
>
> -Philippe
> _______________________________
> Philippe De Smedt
> Architect
> Viquity Corporation (www.viquity.com)
> 1161 N. Fair Oaks Avenue
> Sunnyvale, CA 94089-2102
> (408) 548-9722
> (408) 747-5586 (fax)
> pdesmedt@viquity.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nicholas Kassem [mailto:nick.kassem@eng.sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, October 09, 2000 1:28 PM
> To: Ebxml-Poc
> Subject: Confusion on RM
>
>
> Dear POCers,
>
> In reviewing the POC material over the week-end it is clear that there is
> some confusion over what was meant by Reliable Messaging in the POC
matrix.
> Most of us support Relaible Messaging in some shape or form (which we can
> not show in Tokyo). The question that needs answering is who is committed
> to optionally show ebXML RM (Ver0.080) at the Tokyo POC. I plan to raise
> this for discussion on our weekly conf. call so please  take the time and
> read the spec (again). Thanks in advance.
>
> Regards,
> Nick
>
> p.s. Keep in mind that one of the key roles POC plays is to provide
> feed-back to other WGs. So if you aren't happy with the RM Spec and plan
> not to support it on technical grounds, ebXML TRP needs your input.