<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Our first residual RID is this one:<br>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">"Each RAMS gateway subscribes locally to all
subjects that are of interest". So the RAMS gateway acts as a proxy to
nodes in other continuum that are interested in particular subjects.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Latter in the book, the concept of envelopes
is
introduced. Why does AMS treat messages to other continuum different?
Surely
this functionality should be localised to the RAMS gateway itself. As
far as
the publishing/sending node is concerned, the RAMS gateway should be
treated as
any other node.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">My proposed disposition is this:<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"></p>
<blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Not accepted, as it’s unclear what change is
requested.<span style=""> </span>For published messages the
RAMS gateway is indeed treated in the same way as any other node.<span
style=""> </span>Envelopes are needed for messages that are sent
to nodes in remote continua.<span style=""> </span>This is
because RAMS forwarding is in some ways a kind of “routing” and the AMS
message
is not a routable structure: it lacks destination, which the envelope
supplies.<span style=""> </span>For published messages the
RAMS gateway itself encapsulates the message in an envelope for
forwarding, but
for private messages the source node must do it because it alone knows
the
destination.<br>
</p>
</blockquote>
<p class="MsoPlainText">We didn't talk about this one in detail, mostly
because it could involve an in-depth discussion of RAMS that would have
crowded out a lot of other items. Stuart, does this disposition make
sense to you? If not, are there some specific points we can zero in on
to reach a consensus?<br>
</p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Scott<br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><br>
<o:p></o:p></p>
<br>
</body>
</html>