RE: [provision-comment] Public Comment

["Jeff Bohren" <jbohren@opennetwork.com>]

Trevor,

I believe that is a typo. Status requests are intended to always be
synchronous. Which document is the typo in?

Jeff Bohren
Product Architect
OpenNetwork Technologies, Inc
 
Try the industry's only 100% .NET-enabled identity management software.
Download your free copy of Universal IdP Standard Edition today. Go to
www.opennetwork.com/eval.
 


-----Original Message-----
From: comment-form@oasis-open.org [mailto:comment-form@oasis-open.org] 
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:25 PM
To: provision-comment@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [provision-comment] Public Comment


Comment from: Trevor.Yann@ca.com

I am a little confused about the StatusRequest element. The 1.0 spec
states that the "execution" attribute MUST NOT be "synchronous". Is this
a typo?


It doesn't make sense for a StatusRequest to be asynchronous, as this
implies that you might issue another StatusRequest to determine the
result of the previous Statusrequest.


The default value for the "execution" attribute IS "synchronous", so not
specifying the "execution" attribute is the same as specifying
"synchronous". This is inconsistent with the wording in the SPML 1.0
specification.

To unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
provision-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit
http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.