W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > November 2004

Re: Minutes of MEP Task Force 2004-11-23

From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 16:56:47 -0500
To: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Message-Id: <1101247006.3646.2022.camel@nc6000.w3.org>

On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 15:34, Amelia A Lewis wrote:
. . .
> That in turn suggests that best practice is to characterize exchanges in
> which the response is *expected* by both sides in the exchange to return
> to the requesting node (for some definition of node identity), but that
> if the service permits or expects the response to be directed to some
> third node, then a different MEP should be advertised.

+1 

> I think that most interactions are likely to be those in which the
> service expects the response to return to the requester, so that our
> publication of only that MEP is perfectly reasonable (although we
> *could* provide the additional third-party in-out MEP; it wouldn't be
> that difficult to show the binding in a non-normative note, for HTTP,
> using WSA or WSMD or both).

+1

-- 

David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Received on Tuesday, 23 November 2004 21:56:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:33 GMT