- From: David Ezell <David_E3@Verifone.Com>
- Date: Thu, 16 Nov 2000 12:06:39 -0500
- To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
- Cc: "'Williams, Stuart'" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
On Wed 11/15/2000 6:37 PM+5:00 Martin Gudgin wrote: >We're in grave danger of biting off more than we can chew. I do not want to >commit at this stage to all the things listed here ( authentication, >encryption, reliable delivery, sessions and transactions ). I think XP >should not PRECLUDE these things, but I think they should be provided in >seperate specs. Agreed. The intent is to express only a little more than "not preclude", in that it should "encourage a common approach" for providing such facilities, which would make the follow-on specs you mention easier to create. We do not mean to imply that XP would contain a design for these facilities. Possibly as follows. It better expresses the intent in the first sentence. DR305 (Absorbs old DRs: DR003) The XML Protocol design SHOULD encourage a common approach for providing facilities (in future specifications) which can support complex applications. Such applications may be characterized as having higher consequences of failure, leading to the following needs: the need to ensure message integrity (authentication) and privacy (encryption), the need to be aware of delivery semantics (reliable delivery, path to service), and the need to support more complex exchange patterns for long-lived sessions and for transactional semantics (sessions and transactions). Thanks -David
Received on Thursday, 16 November 2000 12:06:53 UTC