- From: <paul.downey@bt.com>
- Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2006 20:59:44 -0000
- To: <dmh@tibco.com>, <public-ws-addressing@w3.org>
Hi David, Let me see if I can spring a few of your traps :-) I assume that a "back-channel" is some magical combination of a return address and message correlation implicitly supplied by the underlying mechaninsm by which messages are being exchanged. In other words, request-response just works. I'm guessing you are asking for us to define that in more formal terms in our spec, assuming we add the term? > * Does email have a back-channel? Reply-To, MessageId/In-Reply-To, it's certainly possible: http://www.w3.org/TR/soap12-email > * Does a raw TCP connection have a back-channel? possibly, if you place significance on the order of messages. > * Does a raw UDP packet have a back-channel? nope. > * Does BEEP have a back-channel? er, possibly, depending on the profile. A bit like asking if Java has polynomials, no? RFC3288's http://iana.org/beep/soap supports the request/response MEP > * Does XMLP <message/> have a back-channel? er, SOAP abstracting away the transport is why we're here .. > * Does XMLP <iq/> have a back-channel? doesn't SOAP over XMPP use one? http://www.xmpp.org/extensions/xep-0072.html#binding-operation-request-sendingreceiving > and finally ... > > * If a binding tells me "I have a back-channel", just what can I > count on? request-response. probably. Paul
Received on Monday, 6 November 2006 20:59:58 UTC