- 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