resend of email

[Jim Hughes <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>]

>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
>From: PMDF at eList eXpress <postmaster@eListX.com>
>Subject: Delivery Notification: Delivery has failed
>To: jfh@fsc.fujitsu.com
>
>Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-language: EN-US
>
>This report relates to a message you sent with the following header fields:
>
>   Message-id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000823134002.00b20cb0@pophost.fs.fujitsu.com>
>   Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:45:23 -0700
>   From: Jim Hughes <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>
>   To: ebxml transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
>   Subject: Re: discussion priorities
>
>Your message cannot be delivered to the following recipients:
>
>   Recipient address: ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>   Reason: Not found in directory
>
>Original-envelope-id: 0FZR00J02OZRDR@eListX.com
>Reporting-MTA: dns;eListX.com (DIRECTORY-DAEMON)
>
>Action: failed
>Status: 5.1.1 (Not found in directory)
>Original-recipient: rfc822;ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Final-recipient: rfc822;ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org
>Return-path: <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>
>Received: from DIRECTORY-DAEMON.eListX.com by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856)
>  id <0FZR00J03OZRDR@eListX.com> (original mail from jfh@fs.fujitsu.com); Wed,
>  23 Aug 2000 18:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from fujitsuII.fujitsu.com (fujitsuII.fujitsu.com [133.164.253.2])
>  by eListX.com (PMDF V6.0-24 #44856) with ESMTP id 
> <0FZR00I2UOZPZ9@eListX.com>
>  for ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 18:55:02 -0400 (EDT)
>Received: from fujitsuII.fujitsu.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
>         by fujitsuII.fujitsu.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09174   for
>  <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:54:57 -0700 (PDT)
>Received: from jhughes.fs.fujitsu.com
>  (host013.14.fujitsu.com [133.164.14.13] (may be forged))
>         by fujitsuII.fujitsu.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA09168   for
>  <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>; Wed, 23 Aug 2000 15:54:56 -0700 (PDT)
>Date: Wed, 23 Aug 2000 13:45:23 -0700
>From: Jim Hughes <jfh@fs.fujitsu.com>
>Subject: Re: discussion priorities
>In-reply-to: <4.1.20000823135340.06335950@emerald.omg.org>
>X-Sender: jfh@pophost.fs.fujitsu.com
>To: ebxml transport <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
>Message-id: <4.3.2.7.2.20000823134002.00b20cb0@pophost.fs.fujitsu.com>
>MIME-version: 1.0
>X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
>Content-type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=us-ascii
>References: <4.3.2.7.2.20000822213737.00b2f3f0@pophost.fs.fujitsu.com>
>  <4.1.20000822171519.03ed7960@emerald.omg.org>
>  <LPBBLBPKDKAJOLGFEMDNIELECAAA.rvd2@worldnet.att.net>
>  <186F02933E65D4118EA200508BA37277A4C41A@neptune.commerceone.com>
>
>At 02:11 PM 8/23/00 -0400, Henry Lowe wrote:
>
>>2. if you don't have ebXML routing (and, as David Webber was
>>    suggesting, left routing to the network), IMHO, you don't need
>>    the type of RM Fujitsu is proposing as there are loads of
>>    protocols out there that already have it (why re-invent it,
>>    unless, of course, you need it for the end-to-end guarantee
>>    over multi-hop routes managed by ebXML Messaging Service).
>
>No, that's not the point for RM. It's provided so that a BP has *at least 
>one* "reliable" method of communicating with a partner. If you change the 
>requirement to say that reliability can be provided if the right transport 
>is chosen, then of course there is no need for further mechanisms. It has 
>nothing to do with multi-node paths.
>
>I continue to see confusion about the requirements and definitions of 
>terms in the requirements. We will be better served by making sure 
>adjustments/improvements to the requirements are made before getting too 
>enmeshed in the spec that responds to the requirements. Or, at least when 
>points are raised as we review the draft spec, we should be fixing the 
>requirements first... IMHO...
>
>Jim
>