W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2002

Re: New Issues

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>
Message-ID: <OFC6B36C2F.98E295DD-ON85256B4B.005F9CE1@pok.ibm.com>

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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:45 UTC