- From: Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 13:08:51 +0000
- To: mark.nottingham@bea.com
- Cc: public-ws-addressing@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFE9102BE2.D30E4F81-ON802570B2.00453F14-802570B2.004838B9@uk.ibm.com>
Mark, Please may I make a suggestion which might help us reach swifter resolution to the issues tomorrow? We have 4 possible proposals on the table: 1. (Initial SAP/Oracle/IBM proposal) Superceded 2. Marc's proposal based on 1+ Anish's friendly amendment 3. David's proposal 4. Umit's/my proposal Rather than discuss the above as complete proposals, could we separate into composable functions and discuss as such? I.e.: A. Specification of async only or sync only at binding level Should we opt for: asyncOnly attribute from proposal 2 OR wsaw:Async from proposal 3 OR no additional flag from proposal 4 (OR other) B. Specification of binding for async response Should we opt for wsaw:Async binding semantics from proposal 2 OR wsaw:ResponseBinding semantics from proposal 3 OR no response binding specification (OR other) C. Specification of async at the interface/op level Should we opt for Anish's friendly amendment to 2 OR no specification (OR other) There may be finer points that I have missed, but this structure might help focus the debate. Many thanks Katy
Received on Monday, 7 November 2005 13:09:09 UTC