W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002


From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:20:14 +0000
Message-ID: <3C5E6E6E.3010605@sun.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: "'Noah Mendelsohn'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Williams, Stuart wrote:

> I think we do have a coherent picture, but I think that the term
> Transport-MEP has been conjouring up a different image for you than it has
> at least for me... which is indicative of it perhaps not being the right
> term. I think that I am now happy to think in terms, solely of SOAP MEPs
> where the MEP description details:
> - The operation of the MEP in terms of an exchange of SOAP messages 
>   (cf. the requester/responder FSMs in the current draft)
> - How the MEP is relayed across intermediaries.
>   (Currently just narrative in the current draft)
> - The disposition of faults generated during the operation of the MEP.
>   (This is covered for SRR in the current draft... but the detail is
>    open to discussion particularly faults due to the response message).
> A binding description then has to 'fit' the usage of the underlying protocol
> into the FSMs that describe operations of the MEP. However, the binding
> description is fundementally single-hop... the required *relaying* behaviour
> is decribed in the MEP and feature specifications and not the binding
> specifications.

This pretty much describes my view too. In particular the last sentence 
above summarises nicely the view I was trying to convey in my initial post.


Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 06:20:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:18 UTC