Re: comments on 30/3/2001 AM draft

Hi Chris,

> 7) Section 5 doesn't have a section defining/declaring the three binding
> "operations" (OP, MSG and ERR).
I didn't want to get into discussing binding operations because this could
be easily confused with XMLP operations which each map to several binding
operations. Instead I left operation to mean the same thing as at the XMLP
layer, i.e. "a single instance of a message exchange pattern", or a set of, MSG.yyy and possibly ERR.ind primitives. However, now that XMLP_Data
has been removed from the AM, this distinction may not be so important.

I'm not sure exactly what would go in such a section over and above what is
already in, and where the primitives are listed ?

> In addition, the disgram in section 5.1.1
> only contains reference to OP and MSG (ERR is omitted). That same diagram
> also refers to OP and MSG as primitives, when in fact they are Binding
> in the lexicon of the AM.
See my comment above. I agree that ERR should be added, do you think we need
to use, MSG.yyy and ERR.zzz to highlight their status as primitives ?

> 9) Something that isn't clear to me is whether the correlation discussed
in section
> 5 is the same as correlation discussed in section 3. In fact, I believe
> there may need to be a separation of concerns w/r/t correlation as it
> to individual message exchange and a protocol binding which may support
> notion of session. A session may span multiple correlated message
> or "conversations".
That is how I was thinking of it working. The correlation in section 5 is
purely low level binding specific correlation (e.g. HTTP providing
request-response). There is also a need for XMLP layer based correlation as
discussed in section 3.


Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2001 09:38:32 UTC