Subject: Re: Tracking Log RE: discussion priorities
David, The short answer to you question is YES; but the long answer (i.e., how you might do it) is: Been thinking about this and the multi-hop problem (I think they are linked) and have at least a simplistic solution in mind -- a doubly linked ring of To/From items, one for each hop of the route, and a designated Originator and Destination so you know where a message started and where it's (supposed to be) going; each Messaging Service Handler (MSH - not sure how to pronounce this) will add a "been here" element to a log at the end of the message (it has to be at the end so implementations don't need to copy/manipulate the buffered message received to add the "been here" -- efficiency consideration, copying from one buffer to another is BADness). This is probably best explained with a diagram. I'll try to draw it up and send it out. I was thinking that this could be integrated with the RM spec first (as Jim Hughes pointed out, RM already has the start of multi-hop in it) -- is that OK with you/Fujitsu, Jim? Question: will the RM spec eventually be integrated with the Messaging Service spec? This is also the "How it might be done" for my comment on section 3.3.1 (lines 454-472) of the Messaging Service spec. Best regards, Henry ------------------------------------------------- At 11:23 AM 08/24/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote: >David/Henry > >Version 0.5 of the spec had a tracking log ... perhaps we should revisit it. > >David > >-----Original Message----- >From: Henry Lowe [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] >Sent: Thursday, August 24, 2000 7:24 AM >To: David RR Webber >Cc: Henry Lowe; richard drummond; ebXML Transport (E-mail) >Subject: Re: discussion priorities > > >David, > >Sorry I didn't explain the problem clearly before. >Glad you agree it needs to be dealt with. Unfortunately, >I don't think we'll have a solution before the ConCall >today in 40 minutes :-( > >You're right about the tracking log, too. Thought I mentioned >it somewhere, but in case I didn't, you're right. Probably >should go in Headers somewhere -- you can probably get away >with sticking it in the Header extension which is only needed >for non-point-to-point -- that gets it out of the way (smaller, >leaner messages) for many transactions. > >Best regards, >Henry >-------------------------------------------------- >At 03:41 AM 08/24/2000 -0400, David RR Webber wrote: >>Message text written by Henry Lowe >>>Thus, >>a typical scenario would be as above -- browser to Portal >>which forwards on to Sears based on routing information in >>the Header. The problem is, the current document doesn't >>have this routing info. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> >>Henry, >> >>I totally agree - I've been saying this for a year - since >>Microsoft came out with Biztalk and all the persistent >>info' is taken away from the wire format. This is a disaster >>and a major hole. >> >>Notice MIME has tracking info in it - and Apache servers >>supply this also. >> >>I'd like to see the header contain a tracking log section. >> >>Marty was also alluding to this for TPA - he has a bucket >>for it - but no deals on mechanisms. >> >>The huge issue is that a 3rd party can pass something to >>2nd party - who then passes to trading partner who assumes >>he is a trusted party - and now is recieving ((unknowingly) >>content from an untrusted source. >> >>DW.
eList eXpress LLC