- From: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 11:47:43 -0400
- To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
- Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
- Message-id: <44E09B1F.2030205@tibco.com>
This looks pretty good. The one thing that jumps out at me is that the table doesn't distinguish sender properties from receiver properties. Specifically (as I understand it): * The OutboundMessage only matters to the sender. * The InboundMessage only matters to receivers * Absent intermediaries, at least, ImmediateDestination may be redundant for a receiver (or may be quite important?). * Absent intermediaries, at least, ImmediateSender may be redundant for the sender, and may not be available to the receiver in some bindings (e.g., decoupled pub-sub). But maybe that's why we have wsa:From. * Personally, I'm not clear on how we're modeling intermediaries (e.g., is the ImmediateDestination the ultimate receiver or the first intermediary, or does it depend? Put another way, does the MEP extend end-to-end or one hop? If it's end-to-end, each intermediary will have its own copy of /all/ the properties). Maybe we've covered this already and I just haven't swapped it back in. Obviously, we'll have to come to some sort of resolution on multicast. It may well be that Noah and I have equally powerful ways of expressing the same constraints, in which case we can probably avoid a steel cage match. Otherwise, I'll point out that Noah can't hit me because I wear glasses. David Orchard wrote: > > Is available at http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/6/soap12-part3 > > > > I believe this draft deals with all outstanding issues, specifically > those from Noah and DavidH. > > > > AFAIK, this is ready to move to WD. > > > > Cheers, > > Dave >
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 15:49:26 UTC