ws-rx message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: PR18 - A proposal
- From: Doug Davis <dug@us.ibm.com>
- To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
- Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2006 10:05:09 -0500
I think PR18 is saying that the text
in 3.2 is a bit too vague w.r.t. which RM header may be piggy-backed and
into which messages they may be added. To that end, I propose we
do a bit of wordsmithing. Currently section 3.2 says:
3.2 Considerations
on the Use of "Piggy-Backing"
Some RM header blocks may be added to
messages that happen to be targeted to the same Endpoint to
which those headers are to be sent (a
concept often referred to as "piggy-backing"), thus saving the
overhead of an additional message exchange.
Reference parameters MUST be considered when
determining whether two EPRs are targeted
to the same Endpoint.
I propose to make the following edits:
3.2 Considerations
on the Use of "Piggy-Backing"
Some RM header blocks may be added to
messages that happen to be are
targeted to the same Endpoint to
which those headers are to be sent (a
concept often referred to as "piggy-backing"), thus saving the
overhead of an additional message exchange.
Reference parameters MUST be considered when
determining whether two EPRs are targeted
to the same Endpoint. See
the sections that define each
RM header block to know which
ones may be considered for piggy-backing.
thanks,
-Doug
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]