Re: Proposed text on reliability in the web services architecture

Mike,

Thanks.  I hadn't read it, and it's right on target.  If the ws-architecture
is to include an RM section, I'd find it helpful if this paper was
referenced
there.

Walden

----- Original Message -----
From: "S. Mike Dierken" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: Proposed text on reliability in the web services architecture


>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Hao He" <[email protected]>
>
>
> > I think Walden has made a good point. We don't really care about RM,
which
> > itself has been solved in the TCP/IP layer or other messaging layer
> already.
> > The whole RM thing is misleading within Web Services context. What we
> really
> > care is a reliable way of coordinating a client and its server, although
> RM
> > might be helpful.
>
> I'm sure most people here have read this paper, but I thought I'd point it
> out anyway, sorry if these are old bits.
>
> http://www.reed.com/Papers/EndtoEnd.html
> END-TO-END ARGUMENTS IN SYSTEM DESIGN
> J.H. Saltzer, D.P. Reed and D.D. Clark*
> M.I.T. Laboratory for Computer Science
>
> This paper presents a design principle that helps guide placement of
> functions among the modules of a distributed computer system. The
principle,
> called the end-to-end argument, suggests that functions placed at low
levels
> of a system may be redundant or of little value when compared with the
cost
> of providing them at that low level. Examples discussed in the paper
include
> bit error recovery, security using encryption, duplicate message
> suppression, recovery from system crashes, and delivery acknowledgement.
Low
> level mechanisms to support these functions are justified only as
> performance enhancements.
>
>