RE: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not defined

["Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com>]

No, in the case of an rfc2822 message carried over an rfc2821 transport
there is no backchannel (as defined in the chris/bob joint definition)
since rfc2821 deprecated the rfc281 TURN command.
In rfc2821 there is no way that a response may be transmitted over the
same connection as the request.
-bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Salz [mailto:rsalz@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 8:20 PM
To: Paul Fremantle
Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not
defined

> I still don't agree that this is right. I think there may be cases
where 

> there is a new transport level connection. The main point is that the 
> response channel is transport-defined not WS-A defined.

Hm.  For a SOAP-over-SMTP binding, would you expect the backchannel to
be 
a response message, the equivalent of the recipient invoking the 'reply'

function on its mail user-agent?  (I think the question is interesting; 
either there is no back-channel or there is only the back-channel.)  I 
think it's up to the particular transport binding to say, tho.

        /r$

--
STSM
Senior Security Architect
DataPower SOA Appliances