- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 16:19:23 -0500
- To: marc.hadley@sun.com
- Cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
+1. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------ Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> 02/12/2002 05:37 AM To: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM@Lotus cc: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org> Subject: Re: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179 Noah Mendelsohn wrote: > How about: > > ""A binding specification MUST support one or more Message Exchange > Patterns. A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional > features, > in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining > state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner > consistent with the specification for those features." > > As I mentioned on the call, I think it's MEP's that give you the general > framework for what to do with a message, where to deliver faults, etc. I'm > nervous about discussing what it means to deliver SOAP messages outside > the context of an MEP. > Fine with me. We might also want to wordsmith: "As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such as reliable message delivery, request/response MEPs, multicast MEPs, etc.)." which appears a little above the paragraph in question. How about: "As described above, SOAP can be augmented with optional features, (such as reliable message delivery, additional MEPs, etc.)." Marc. > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 > IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 > One Rogers Street > Cambridge, MA 02142 > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> > Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org > 02/11/2002 12:28 PM > > > To: XML Protocol Discussion <xml-dist-app@w3.org> > cc: > Subject: TBTF: Proposed resolution issue 179 > > > Issue 179[1] concerns the apparent mandatory support for one-way MEPs in > all bindings. During the last TBTF call we discussed this issue and the > consensus was that mandatory support for a one-way MEP was not intended. > I would like to propose the following resolution to this issue: > > Currently in part 1, section 5.3 we find: > > "Every binding specification MUST support the transmission and > processing of one-way messages as described in this specification. A > binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, in > which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining state, > performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner > consistent with the specification for those features." > > I propose that we simply remove the first sentence so that the paragraph > reads: > > "A binding specification MAY state that it supports additional features, > in which case the binding specification MUST provide for maintaining > state, performing processing, and transmitting information in a manner > consistent with the specification for those features." > > Regards, > Marc. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues.html#x179 > > -- > Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> > XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems. > > > > > -- Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com> XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 16:32:54 UTC