Re: TPAs in a multi-hop environment

[Henry Lowe <hlowe@omg.org>]

Well, it depends on what your requirements for multi-hop are.
If you do it this way,
1. you don't get end-to-end RM, and
2. the TPA, or some BP process, has to handle the logging of 
   where a message has been.

You're also putting a heavier load on your BP/TPA as it's 
handling a low level function.  Of course, Portals will 
love it as everyone will have to keep their TPAs on their 
Portal (for a fee :-). 

Best regards,
Henry
---------------------------------------------------
At 01:37 PM 08/28/2000 -0700, David Burdett wrote:
>Marty
>
>I agree with Marty and extend it to also include an agreement between the
>original sender and the final recipient.
>
>David
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: mwsachs@us.ibm.com [mailto:mwsachs@us.ibm.com]
>Sent: Friday, August 25, 2000 5:16 AM
>To: Henry Lowe
>Cc: richard drummond; ebXML Transport (E-mail)
>Subject: Re: discussion priorities
>
>
>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
>>
>>
>
>
>