[cap-talk] Petnames versus E-order with ocaps

[Karp, Alan H]

MarkM wrote:

> Please reread the explanation of WormholeOp 
> <http://www.erights.org/elib/distrib/captp/WormholeOp.html>. With WormholeOp, if 
> Alice sends a resolved reference to Bob, it arrives resolved, so it can immediately 
> be assigned a petname on arrival. But VatA also sends to VatB all of VatA's remaining 
> traffic for VatC that was unacked at the time it is sending this message to VatB, all 
> encrypted so only VatC can decrypt. This includes all of Alice's prior messages for 
> Carol. VatB will present this encrypted traffic to VatC prior to redeeming the 
> serialized ref to Carol. Therefore, with WormholeOp, Bob can immediately assign a 
> petname without losing pipelining.

Now I'm really confused.  In an earlier message, you said Bob should use a when block for the reference he got from Alice.  I took that to mean that Bob got a promise that didn't resolve until Alice's prior messages to Carol had been delivered.  Here you say that Bob can get a resolved reference to Carol.  If he does, then I don't see how petnames can be compatible with E-order.  If Bob previously had a reference to Carol, then messages on that reference using the petname are independent of messages Alice sends to Carol.  After he receives a reference to Carol from Alice, are messages he sends using that petname delayed or not?

________________________
Alan Karp
Principal Scientist
Virus Safe Computing Initiative
Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
1501 Page Mill Road
Palo Alto, CA 94304
(650) 857-3967, fax (650) 857-7029
http://www.hpl.hp.com/personal/Alan_Karp