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: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:19:23 -0500
To: marc.hadley@sun.com
Cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OFCE165B5E.21490DD7-ON85256B5E.007583A1@lotus.com>
+1.

------------------------------------------------------------------
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>
02/12/2002 05:37 AM

 
        To:     Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus
        cc:     XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        Subject:        Re: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179


Noah Mendelsohn wrote:

> 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.
>

Fine with me. We might also want to wordsmith:

"As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such
as reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast MEPs, 
etc.)."

which appears a little above the paragraph in question. How about:

"As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such
as reliable message delivery, additional MEPs, etc.)."

Marc.


> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>


--
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 16:32:54 GMT

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