- From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 18:46:24 +0100
- To: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Do you think we should be doing something similar? I think that was implicit... yes! I like the way this links in the key concepts from beep of sessions (and operations on sessions), peer roles, message exchange and preservation of channel characteristics. We have at least concepts of messages, senders and receiver. We also speak of concepts like message exchange patterns. I think we're less clear about what we expect of the underlying communication channel. Something simlarly crisp about SOAP transport bindings would be good (I think). Regards Stuart > Jean-Jacques. > > "Williams, Stuart" wrote: > > > I was recently referred to section 2.5 of the Beep Core spec. It's an > > enviably concise and compact definition of what BEEP expects of a mapping to > > a particular transport service. > > > > Regards > > > > Stuart > > [1] http://beepcore.org/beepcore/rfc3080.jsp#transport.mapping >
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 13:46:41 UTC