- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 22:37:25 -0500
- To: skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Stuart Williams says: >> What I dislike about the suggested revision is that it hints at the choice >> of MEP being the subject of a run-time negotiation amongst the participants >> in a message exchange. I'm not encouraging such runtime negotiation of MEP's, and I would expect it to be rare, I don't see why it shouldn't be allowed. I think our design already provides for it, and disallowing it would be artificial. I think it's absolutely crucial to realize that, while the envelopes will flow "downstream" from hop to hop, that the bindings will be sending traffic bi-directionally, possibly in fragmented forms etc. The most obvious examples of such traffic are low level acknowledgements, flow control window updates, etc. Since bindings are allowed to engage in that bi-directional "chatter" for a variety of purposes, why not to establish the MEP? Unusual, but perfectly reasonable if that's how the binding happens to be spec'd. In short, I think that putting an assymetric responsibility on the receiver is artificial. The design is already set to give the appropriate flexibility in establishing MEPs, and if a binding specification wants to call for low level "negotiation" at run time, I see no reason to prohibit that. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Noah Mendelsohn Voice: 1-617-693-4036 IBM Corporation Fax: 1-617-693-8676 One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 ------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 22:51:49 UTC