- From: Mountain, Highland M <highland.m.mountain@intel.com>
- Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2001 08:32:01 -0800
- To: "'distobj@acm.org'" <distobj@acm.org>, "'www-ws@w3.org'" <www-ws@w3.org>
- Cc: "Condry, Michael W" <michael.w.condry@intel.com>, "Hall, Randy E"<randy.e.hall@intel.com>, "Srinivasan, Krishnamurthy"<krishnamurthy.srinivasan@intel.com>, "Malu, Pallavi G" <pallavi.g.malu@intel.com>
Mark, Thank you for your interest in the Tentative Hold Protocol submission from Intel. We appreciate your comments and suggestions. Here is our response to your points regarding our submission: 1) One note of clarification, THP is not an RPC based protocol, but document based . Also, THP does not Lock resources, but marks them as held, in a business context. Because of this, we believe WebDAV locking may not be appropriate. 2) Regarding a new Web DAV Hold method using an "e-tag like" mechanism, we are uncomfortable using an HTTP extension to facilitate an application level semantic. We do not want to tie THP to the underlying protocol by incorporating the Hold action to a transport protocol extension. THP would be better served by creating a SOAP extension to facilitate resource Tentative Holds where the resources in question are outside the scope of the transport protocol (these resources would typically be represented by database records). 3) We agree with the notion of a SOAP/HTTP extension with a non-rpc approach, where these extensions would be facilitated via a well-understood header. These SOAP extensions could then be reused over other protocols. Please let us know if you are satisfied with the above statements or if we misinterpreted any of your points. If you would like to discuss this further, we would be open to hosting a conference call, at your earliest convenience. Thank you again for your comments. Regards, Highland Mary Mountain Intel Corporation Distributed Systems Lab (DSL - CTG) (480) 552 - 3817 highland.m.mountain@intel.com
Received on Tuesday, 18 December 2001 11:32:05 UTC