W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > September 2006

Re: ISSUE: Description of ImmediateDestination

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 21:51:14 -0400
To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
Cc: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF9FBEBADC.170806FE-ON852571E1.0009B965-852571E1.000A2F45@lotus.com>

David Hull writes:

> 0) The first sentence says the ImmediateDestination is the 
> immediate destination (ImmediateSender has
> the same problem)

That's the same phrasing used in SOAP 1.2 Request/Response.  I agree it's 
a bit unhelpful, but keeping them parallel seems to be of a bit more value 
than introducing a difference in one and not the other.

> 2) There is no need to introduce the undefined term "multicast group".

The property takes a single URI.  Per web architecture that single URI 
designates a resource.  What would you prefer to call it?  Multicast group 
fits with the usage I've heard over the years in building multicast 
protocols, but it's been awhile since I did that seriously.  Has the 
conventional terminology changed?

>  As far as I know, no MEP specification provides any standard 
> means of representing any particular kind
> of address. 

The difference here is that we're using a single URI to name some sort of 
collection, an issue that doesn't come up with the other MEPs.  In all 
cases the means of representing a destination IS specified -- it's a URI. 
Here I'm trying to make clear that the means by which the URI of the group 
is resolved to its constituent members (the possibly several target nodes) 
is not specified.  That issue doesn't come up with the other MEPs, in 
which a single URI designates a single destination node.

I'll have to think some about your other proposals.


Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
Received on Wednesday, 6 September 2006 01:51:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:30 UTC