- From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
- Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:53:35 +0200
- To: david.burdett@commerceone.com
- Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org, steve@enigmatec.net, distobj@acm.org
david.burdett@commerceone.com wrote:
> Although I can't speak for the whole group, I think that defining
> specific signals with rules on how/when to use them is a good idea.
>
>The question is which signals do we need?
>
>I know I don't have the background to do the work out which ones. What we need is volunteers as I mentioned in my last email ;)
>
>So how about ...
>
>You and/or Anders offering to specify the signals required and how they could fit in CDL, if the group agrees to *favorably* consider whatever proposals you suggest?
>
>
I have to keep read the CDL spec but Im interested in keeping a dialog
with the team. :)
For now I would like to bring forward two type signals
1. Receipt acknowledgement
with Signature
with a list of objective *criterias* that the sender of the reciept
says has been verified at the time of reach-event.
2. Notice (good faith)
a reciver that is expecting a data message could ask the sender
what has happended to the message.
(its not the same a status request since the message id is now known.)
(maybe this good faith signal should be a data message since a reply
may be expected but
it should be part of any frameworks basic set of "administrative
data messages")
The early rejection message (acceptance ack) fits better a data message
than a signal.
cheers
/anders
Received on Sunday, 18 July 2004 08:54:51 UTC