Hi Karl, Sorry, I have a couple of quick questions/observations... Apologies in advance if I have misunderstood anything in your email as sometimes happens. On 24 Aug 2007, at 11:54, Karl Czajkowski wrote: <snip/>
... However, due to the non-binding nature of these signals and the assumption of bounded rationality (we can ignore the possibility of bluffing and other psychological strategies), I am not sure these differences are significant. For privacy, one could imagine secure advertisement channels (with authorization) to further blur the boundaries.
Are you saying that 'bluffing and other psychological strategies' can be ignored in the negotiation protocol that is used or in the negotiation strategy of each participant? For me, these two aspects of reaching agreement are orthogonal, just like they are in (for example) contract law.
Furthermore, 2PC can be synthesized with two WS-Agreement round-trips and an appropriate domain-specific agreement semantics. So, either advance reservation, combined with the right cost/penalty model, or the underlying invitation system can both look like 2PC in practice:
1.a. initiator offers advance reservation, OR 1.b. advertiser publishes interest
after this first stage, both parties are aware of interest and primed to negotiate...
2.a. responder accepts (or rejects) reservation offer, OR 2.b. initiator offers against advertisement (or ignores it)
after this stage, one party is obligated to satisfy and the other has a choice to make... (For the advance reservation, the initiator has a choice because the reservation includes a cost model with cheap cancellation under reasonable deadlines).
3.a. initiator offers claiming agreement (or cancels reservation), OR 3.b. responder accepts offer (or rejects it)
So far you have the messages: offer, advert, cancel, accept and reject... all of which are clear to me. But can you explain what the 'offers claiming agreement' step (3a) is? I'm sorry, I don't understand what this means - is it an offer, accept or another message being sent from the initiator to the responder? <snip/>
p.s. I will add that the fundamental challenge I see for GRAAP-WG and WS-Agreement is that everyone approaches it with the same natural (but incorrect) intuitions about trust, signalling, and consensus.
Can you explain some more about what you think these shared (but incorrect) intuitions are? My intuition is to a) trust no-one, b) assume messages ('signals') can be lost, duplicated and re-ordered and c) assume that consensus may or not be reached - it depends :-). Are these the same as yours and/or GRAAP-WG's? Thanks, Michael.