- From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 19:01:03 -0500
- To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > I understand your explanation, but I don't think this advances the > > effort, because the meaning of "synchronous protocol" is not clear, > > at least not to me. > > How about: > > synchronous protocol - one which allows a request followed by a response What protocol doesn't? > synchronous only protocol - one which mandates a request be followed by a > response What protocol can 'mandate' a response? And now you're introducing yet another term: 'synchronous only protocol'. Is that necessary? BTW, I think "synchronous protocol" is unnecessary verbiage, no more descriptive than "synchronous exchange", which need not apply to the whole protocol. Do you "agree" that what makes TCP "synchronous" is the fact that each transmitted segment cannot be cleared from the send buffer until it has been acknowledged? If so, why are we calling that "synchronous" instead of "mandatory acknowledgement" or some other obvious choice? WM
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 21:40:23 UTC