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 Hadley <>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 06:20:22 UTC