Re: multi-hop requirement

[Sandy Klausner <klausner@coretalk.net>]

William:

Thanks for the reference to David Burdett's "Multi-Hop Reliable Messaging
Use Cases Discussion paper for Tokyo F2F." This is exactly the information
that I was seeking. I will have comments in a few days after I complete my
analysis.

Sandy

> From: "William J. Kammerer" <wkammerer@foresightcorp.com>
> Date: Tue, 09 Jan 2001 09:42:20 -0500
> To: "ebXML Transport (E-mail)" <ebxml-transport@lists.ebxml.org>
> Subject: Re: multi-hop requirement
> 
> Sandy Klausner is puzzled by the inclusion of multi-hop capability in
> the Transport, Routing & Packaging Version 0.91 document: "...no where
> in the document is there a requirement description that explains one or
> more practical deployments."
> 
> I'm puzzled, too, except I just never had the temerity to ask the
> question since I don't know anything about such matters. But it does
> seem kind of a low level transport matter - kind of X.400'ish.  I don't
> think RosettaNet or BizTalk have such a thing, and SOAP only mentions it
> circumspectly. RosettaNet specifically ignores it: "In RNIF 2.0,
> RosettaNet is introducing a mechanism to facilitate exchange of these
> messages through a third-party routing entity such as a hub (a.k.a.
> intermediary). However this mechanism is still based on the peer-to-peer
> message exchange model as far as the PIP is concerned."
> 
> Was the multi-hop capability meant to support intermediaries like VANs
> and e-business switches (a.k.a. VANs with a new name)?  That's kind of
> the way I read David Burdett's Multi-Hop Reliable Messaging Use Cases at
> http://lists.ebxml.org/archives/ebxml-transport/200011/msg00018.html,
> including follow-up messages.
> 
> William J. Kammerer
> FORESIGHT Corp.
> 4950 Blazer Memorial Pkwy.
> Dublin, OH USA 43017-3305
> +1 614 791-1600
> 
> Visit FORESIGHT Corp. at http://www.foresightcorp.com/
> "Commerce for a New World"
> 
> 
>