- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 11:36:23 -0500
- To: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- CC: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "'Noah Mendelsohn'" <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1, but I get a sense that this is also what Noah was suggesting, no? Cheers, Chris Marc Hadley wrote: > 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. > >
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 11:37:56 UTC