Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!mailrus!ames!lll-tis!QZCOM.BITNET!P4403 From: P4403@QZCOM.BITNET Newsgroups: comp.protocols.iso.x400 Subject: Re: Is P3 implementable? Message-ID: <376380@QZCOM> Date: 20 Nov 88 14:09:00 GMT References: <8811161949.AA07122@polya.sun.com> Sender: root@tis.llnl.gov Reply-To: "Johan Lundberg TeleDelta (Swedish Telecom)" Distribution: inet Organization: The Internet Lines: 19 Approved: post-x400@tis.llnl.gov >X-Bitnet-Sender: "Johan Lundberg TeleDelta (Swedish Telecom)" P7 has a similar problem but on a smaller scale: the Alert operation is >invoked asynchronously by the message store and so, if implemented, the >client would have to act as slave for alerts at the same time it acted >as master for the rest of the operations. > >Also, P7 implies a message store which must talk P3 to the MTS (unless >co-located) so you've really only pushed the problem back a notch. I think you are correct about the alert function. However I do not think that it is that big problem that you make it. I guess that one could just "ignore" it. Concerning message store talking P3, I do not think that this will be the "normal" implementation. What I guess is that you will replace todays non- standard access protocol with P7 in the case of co-located UA and MTA.