[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision-comment] Public Comment
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/.
To
unsubscribe from this list, send a post to
provision-comment-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org, or visit http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]