- From: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 12:27:55 -0500
- To: "Marc Hadley <marc.hadley" <marc.hadley@sun.com>
- Cc: "xml-dist-app" <xml-dist-app@w3c.org>
Marc Hadley asks: >> (iii) Binding framework implies negotiation >> 5.1 (last paragraph and ednote) >> "It is up to the communicating nodes to decide how best to express >> particular features; often when a binding-level implementation for a >> particular feature is available, utilizing it when appropriate will >> provide for optimized processing." >> Is it not up to the binding specification to specify how particular >> features are expressed ? This was the subject of an unresolved "debate", leading to the inclusion of the ednote as a marker that further consideration is needed. I tend to side with you: the transport binding specs should have freedom to (re)express features in a binding-specific manner, even if they started out as simple headers. Others strongly disagree, presumably based primarily on the (sensible, IMO) concern that lower layers of the architecture shouldn't be messing with an encaspulated message. It's possible that the answer may yet be indirectly related the issue Henrik and I started discussing on yesterday's call, as to how much discretion intermediaries have to mess with the envelope. It's not the same concern, but both affect the rules by which an envelope does or doesn't get looked at or changed while flowing through the network. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 13:32:57 UTC