Re: discussion priorities

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Marty,

This certainly is a possibility.  However, it's not source routing.
Of course, we had never settled on source routing.  All we said was 
that we should be able to handle it.

We really need to decide how multi-hop should be done.  My contribution 
is just that, a contribution.  I don't have anything I'm interested in 
promoting here, well, except the best solution.

Best regards,
Henry
------------------------
At 08:15 AM 08/25/2000 -0400, mwsachs@us.ibm.com wrote:
>One possibility for multihop is that the sending Party only cares about the
>first path, which can be configured in a TPA.  For the remaing paths,
>perhaps only the intermediate nodes care about the patha they send it on.
>
>Regards,
>Marty
>
>****************************************************************************
>*********
>
>Martin W. Sachs
>IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
>P. O. B. 704
>Yorktown Hts, NY 10598
>914-784-7287;  IBM tie line 863-7287
>Notes address:  Martin W Sachs/Watson/IBM
>Internet address:  mwsachs @ us.ibm.com
>****************************************************************************
>*********
>
>
>
>Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org> on 08/22/2000 05:28:05 PM
>
>To:   richard drummond <rvd2@worldnet.att.net>
>cc:   "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
>Subject:  Re: discussion priorities
>
>
>
>All,
>
>I didn't see anything in the Messaging saying how routing is
>handled.  One of the things we've talked about since the
>beginning is multi-hop routing, e.g., customer at A orders
>widget W from vendor at V bu the message goes via a portal P
>which means it travers two links (one of which might be HTTP
>and the other MQSeries or CORBA).
>
>I included this in my comments, but didn't propvide text.
>You would probably use source routing for this sort of thing
>where the route(s) would be contained in the TPA.  But some
>how these have to get into the Header of the Message so A
>knows to send the message to P and P knows to send it on to V.
>Also need to have a place in the headers to record it's
>actual wild and wooly route through the Internet for traceability.
>
>Or is this all there and I just missed it?
>
>Best regards,
>Henry
>---------------------------------------------
>At 07:37 PM 08/21/2000 -0500, richard drummond wrote:
>>I wish to vote on releasing the messaging spec to the wider ebXML audience
>>this Thursday. given that we will incorporate "error handling" and the
>>"party/address" codes in the spec during the comment period... does anyone
>>think we can not pass the messaging spec this Thursday?
>>
>>best regards, Rik
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: David Burdett [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
>>Sent: Friday, August 18, 2000 7:17 PM
>>To: ebXML Transport (E-mail)
>>Subject: TRP Error Handling Spec Draft
>>
>>
>>Folks
>>
>>I attach some light reading for the weekend. Alternatively called, the TRP
>>Error Handling draft spec version 01 ;)
>>
>>David
>> <<ebXML TRP Error Handling draft 01.doc>>  <<ebXML TRP Error Handling
>draft
>>01.pdf>>
>>
>>Product Management, CommerceOne
>>4400 Rosewood Drive 3rd Fl, Bldg 4, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
>>Tel: +1 (925) 520 4422 (also voicemail); Pager: +1 (888) 936 9599
>>mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
>>
>>
>
>
>
>