Re: We need Multi-hop reliable messaging without Intermediate Acks

[Rich Salz <rsalz@caveosystems.com>]

> but I've just thought of a use case
> involving synchronous messaging using HTTP where I think you absolutely MUST
> have it. This is described in the attached PDF file.

Seems to me that the 'payment received' message is really an app-level
message, and that your example doesn't quite hold.

I do believe there might be a need for intermediate acks and final acks,
which is why I suggested the sender be able to 'keep the connection
open' until acks have gone as far down as desired.  (The message where I
talked about "three cases.")  I also think it's very complicated and
would profile it as an optional feature for 1.0

Your example also brings up an interesting point, about return paths,
particularly where the POC wanted replies to go back via the same path.
If that *stays* as a POC requirement, we should probably explicitly say
that it can't be met. :)
	/r$