[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue i139
Hi all, As discussed on yesterdays call, how's this for an amended proposal for i139. (Note that this has some additional wordsmithing, helped by a morning coffee). Thanks to Jacques for the core proposal, and the unchanged (a) Proposal: (a + b) (a)- Replace: "All other faults in this section relate to the processing of RM header blocks targeted at known Sequences" with: "All other faults in this section relate to known Sequences", which is more accurate (because some faults may be generated outside message processing, such as SequenceTerminated.) (b)- Replace: "Entities that generate Sequence faults SHOULD send those faults to the same [destination] as <wsrm:SequenceAcknowledgement> messages" with: "RM Destinations that generate Sequence faults SHOULD send those faults to the AcksTo endpoint reference (see section 3.1)." I think this fits in with the text in the descriptions of the AcksTo element, and follows the style of the second paragraph in section 3.5 (Request Acknowledgement). Thanks Matt
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]