Re: MAPs and SOAP

>I'd be willing to clarify the use of the extensibility point for
>advanced MEPs, if we can do it in a non-perjorative way.
>  
>
I believe the text I gave before is non-pejorative and a bit more 
complete, in that it mentions needing to define properties in other SOAP 
modules, which I believe is a significant point.  I also think it's a 
bit more accurate in that it specifically says how you can tell if your 
interaction pattern will fit: It's OK if and only if it can get by with 
reply and fault endpoints.  That said, I really don't care about the 
exact wording as long as the disclaimer hits the pertinent points.  For 
reference, here is the text I gave earlier:

    Message addressing properties provide references for the endpoints
    involved in request/reply interactions and other interactions for
    which a reply endpoint and a fault endpoint suffice.  Endpoints
    required for more complex interactions must be handled outside this
    framework by defining separate abstract properties and where
    appropriate mapping them to SOAP properties in some module other
    than that defined in the WS-Addressing SOAP binding.

>Here's some proposed text.
>
>Delete the "any" from the 3rd p of Section 3 as follows:
>
>"Message addressing properties collectively augment a message with the
>following abstract properties to support one way, request reply, and
>other interaction patterns:"
>
>Add a paragraph immediately preceding the 3rd p of Section 3 as follows:
>
>"The set of message addressing properties defined in this specification
>is sufficient for many simple variations of one-way and request-reply
>MEPs.  More advanced MEPs may require additional message addressing
>properties to augment the facilities provided here. "
>
>
>  
>