[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [provision-comment] Public Comment
The file is os-pstc-spml-core-1.0, on the line numbered 1155: 1154 The <StatusRequest> element MUST NOT specify an "execution" attribute value of 1155 "synchronous". Trevor -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Bohren [mailto:jbohren@opennetwork.com] Sent: Friday, 5 March 2004 11:53 PM To: Yann, Trevor; provision-comment@lists.oasis-open.org 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/.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]