ebxml-msg message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Summary of where we are with the conformance clause (CC) for multihop
- From: "Jacques R. Durand" <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>
- To: <ebxml-msg@lists.oasis-open.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 2010 16:44:19 -0800
Summary of where we are with the conformance clause (CC) for multihop:
1- informal consensus is that the
conformance clause can address a "minimal profile" which is easy to implement,
while reflecting most commonly expected use.
2- current clause for "Simple
Multihop" sets the bar too high w/r to this goal:
Supporting both MEP bridging models (described in 2.5.3)
by Intermediaries: "push-on-push" and "pull-on-push" should not be
required.
Instead, only one should be required.
3- Three options:
(a) the CC only requires push-on-push to be supported.
(and requireing endpoints to support MEPs that push only)
(b) the CC requires either "push-on-push" or
"pull-on-push" or both to be supported.
(c) two CCs are drafted (meaning two ways to conform) that
are very close to each other:
- one requiring "push-on-push" for intermediaries (and
requireing endpoints to support MEPs that push only)
- the other "pull-on-push" (and requireing endpoints to
support MEPs that push for sending, and pull for receiving)
4- Problem with (a):
it forces Intermediaries designed only for pull-forwarding, to also support
push-forwarding.
- Advantage of (a): it is a simple clause, that supports
interoperability.
- Problem with (b): not helping interoperability...
options inside the Clause give little meaning to claiming
conformance.
- Problem with (c): multiplies the conformance clauses (or
conformance profiles), with little differences. Ideally these variants should be controlled by product configuration, not by
product feature implementation choice.
Jacques
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]