Re: Comments on SOAP Protocol Binding Framework

+1 to the second comment.

w/r/t the first comment, not sure where in the spec
this should be placed...

Cheers,

Chris

Doug Davis wrote:

> Just a few comments...
> ----
> The definition of features should be moved outside of this
> document and into the spec itself.  To have features mentioned
> only w.r.t. bindings and then to say features could include
> things like "correlation" which might not have anything to do
> with bindings could lead people to assume a link between the
> two that does not need to exists.  Features (or as I prefer
> them to be called "extensions") are not necessarily related
> to the binding (could be - but not required).
> ----
> "It is up to the communicating nodes to decide how best to
> express particular features".
> This isn't correct - the binding specification decides how best
> to express the features - the communicating nodes decide which
> binding to use - but once the binding is picked the nodes
> are not free to express features in some random fashion.
> ----
> 
> -Dug
> 
>