W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > June 2004

Re: Issue 490

From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:17:20 +0200
Message-ID: <40E14FC0.5080607@toolsmiths.se>
To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Hi ,

I have not followed the details in the CDL work but have a question.

How do you plan to handle "risk-allocation" which is neccessary for 

Riskallocation in it simplest form is that the sender OR receiver is 
responsible to make sure that a message or notice is communication from 
sender to receiver.


Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:

> Summary:
>     CDL - Issue I-03
> Description:
> Issue I-03. Do we add additional standard states to describe the 
> outcomes of using reliable messaging protocols? Similarly, should we 
> include additional states to handle other outcomes, such as security 
> failure
> Resolution:
> No we do not need any states at all. We simply need some mechanism for 
> the naming of a state or an observable interaction or non-interaction. 
> WS-CDL already supports this so there is nothing further to do.
> Proposal:
>     Change status from ASSIGNED to RESOLVED WONTFIX
Received on Tuesday, 29 June 2004 07:18:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:25 UTC