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

Re: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2002 14:52:48 -0500
To: marc.hadley@sun.com
Cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF0D1FBA84.B92B3D9C-ON85256B5D.00692276@lotus.com>
How about:

""A binding specification MUST support one or more Message Exchange 
Patterns.  A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional 
features,
in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining
state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
consistent with the specification for those features."

As I mentioned on the call, I think it's MEP's that give you the general 
framework for what to do with a message, where to deliver faults, etc. I'm 
nervous about discussing what it means to deliver SOAP messages outside 
the context of an MEP. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
------------------------------------------------------------------







Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
02/11/2002 12:28 PM

 
        To:     XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc: 
        Subject:        TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179


Issue 179[1] concerns the apparent mandatory support for one-way MEPs in
all bindings. During the last TBTF call we discussed this issue and the
consensus was that mandatory support for a one-way MEP was not intended.
I would like to propose the following resolution to this issue:

Currently in part 1, section 5.3 we find:

"Every binding specification MUST support the transmission and
processing of one-way messages as described in this specification. A
binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, in
which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining state,
performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
consistent with the specification for those features."

I propose that we simply remove the first sentence so that the paragraph
reads:

"A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features,
in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining
state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner
consistent with the specification for those features."

Regards,
Marc.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x179

--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 11 February 2002 15:06:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT