Jim, The algorithm doesn't extend beyond the next node from the perspective of any given sending MSH node. How then does an intermediary affect the basic algorithm? I'm not saying that we don't have work to do to refine/fix intermediary handling, but in my mind, it is the quality of service, not the protocol that extends from end to end. The RM protocol is strictly point-to-point. Cheers, Chris HUGHES,JIM (HP-Cupertino,ex1) wrote: > > Marty's answer is precisely why we had difficulties in introducing multi-hop > RM in MSS V1. I agree with Marty's general observation of the purpose of RM, > though I would word it as getting confirmation of message delivery between > the FromParty MSH and the ToParty MSH -- pointedly, whether there are > intermediate MSH nodes (running RM or not) or static on the wire is not > material, as both scenarios could introduce failure. This is a MSH-level > session protocol, if you will, that just involves the two MSH end points. > > Maybe you get more reliability if an intermediate MSH node pair use > MQseries, but I think it really confuses the issue when you allow the > presence of intermediate nodes to affect the basic RM algorithm. I think > that a node's use of RM should be quite distinct from the (higher layer?) RM > between the endpoint MSHs. > > jim > > >