- From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 15:18:51 -0500
- To: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>
- Cc: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, David Hull <dmh@tibco.com>, David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>, "Patrick R. McManus" <mcmanus@datapower.com>, Rich Salz <rsalz@datapower.com>, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Jean-Jacques Moreau writes: > Or are you implicitly calling for a "qos" property on the MEP No. In fact, while I think doing the MEP at all is a good idea sooner or later, I'm neutral as to whether we should even tackle it in this round. Unlike David Orchard, I feel that it is pretty close to being in the space of the specific work we're being asked to do here. In fact, our original task was stated as "create a one-way MEP", and it was we who (correctly) reinterpreted that as "solve WSA's problem." Unlike what I take to be David Hull's position to be, I don't think it's essential we do it now either. As I've said, I'm unconvinced that supporting it on HTTP is wise in any case. If we do a one-way, I think that formalizing a qos property is complexity that will be hard to get right. On balance, I think I'd keep it simple and do a straightforward one-way, without saying much about the qos parameters. If one ever did want to look at qos, then there would be more than one parameter to consider. Certainly expected delivery time and likelihood of delivery are both potentially important. I'd start by keeping it simple and not trying to formalize either. Noah -------------------------------------- Noah Mendelsohn IBM Corporation One Rogers Street Cambridge, MA 02142 1-617-693-4036 --------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 31 January 2006 20:19:15 UTC