- From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:20:14 +0000
- To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: "'Noah Mendelsohn'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Williams, Stuart wrote: > > I think we do have a coherent picture, but I think that the term > Transport-MEP has been conjouring up a different image for you than it has > at least for me... which is indicative of it perhaps not being the right > term. I think that I am now happy to think in terms, solely of SOAP MEPs > where the MEP description details: > > - The operation of the MEP in terms of an exchange of SOAP messages > (cf. the requester/responder FSMs in the current draft) > > - How the MEP is relayed across intermediaries. > (Currently just narrative in the current draft) > > - The disposition of faults generated during the operation of the MEP. > (This is covered for SRR in the current draft... but the detail is > open to discussion particularly faults due to the response message). > > A binding description then has to 'fit' the usage of the underlying protocol > into the FSMs that describe operations of the MEP. However, the binding > description is fundementally single-hop... the required *relaying* behaviour > is decribed in the MEP and feature specifications and not the binding > specifications. > This pretty much describes my view too. In particular the last sentence above summarises nicely the view I was trying to convey in my initial post. Marc. -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 06:20:22 UTC