- 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
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 UTC