Arvola, if you use a cascading Ack as you describe, why would you ask for an Intermediate Ack? Isn't this the same as a toPartyMSH Ack? We already support this kind of Ack.
The problem is combining IM Acks with End-to-End SyncReply. If you change to require the IM Ack to wait, then you have defeated the purpose of IM RM (fire and forget). OTOH, if we don't support End-to-End SyncReply with IM RM, then the problem goes away. We could either get rid of IM Acks or get rid of SyncReply (or both).
Regards,
David.
