- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 16:18:41 -0400
- To: David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>
- Cc: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
David Hull writes: > 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. Well, I think we badly dropped the ball on this in the original Part 2, and I would have loved to see us do it more carefully. Still, I don't think that the one way MEP, which is supposed to be a simple building block with limited WG time investment, is the umbrella under which to tackle intermediary-enabling MEPs. Should we ever wish to invest in that, I think we should evaluate that as a separate item, make sure the membership is ready to commit the necessary resources and that implementors will actually do something with the results, and then do it for Request/Response first. So, I'd prefer to leave intermediaries in the same somewhat vague state for one-way that they are for req/resp. -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 14 August 2006 20:19:10 UTC