Re: DR8xx - message path model

Lucas Gonze wrote:

> Regarding 3.4:
> "intermediaries cannot be implicitly defined but must be an explicit part of the
> message path model for any data encapsulation language."
>
> This is murky about whether message paths themselves need to be explicit.  This
> wording may be more clear:
> "Support for intermediaries in a message path must be directly addressed within
> the specification."

Lucas, thanks for your text, I think it's clearer; but we are once again hitting
this same issue: the text was taken directly from the charter, and we are strongly
encouraged NOT to change the charter!

David, this seems like an improvement, it would be a pity to loose it; is there
anything we can do about it?

Jean-Jacques.

Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 04:41:07 UTC