RE: [dsml] Proposed TC response to SAP

[Jeff Parham <jeffparh@windows.microsoft.com>]

Okay, I'll remove the statement rather than quibble back. :-)  If no one
else has any comments I will send the response tomorrow afternoon (Fri
3/29).  The errata will still need to be voted on to become official
(Winston, should we go ahead and take a vote?) -- I'll point that out in
the response.

-J

-----Original Message-----
From: John McGarvey [mailto:mcgarvey@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 12:59 PM
To: Jeff Parham
Cc: dsml@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [dsml] Proposed TC response to SAP

Jeff,

This is a good response.  Thanks for the effort.  I will quibble with
one
point:

"Since the only bindings detailed in the DSMLv2 specification are
request-response, AbandonRequest has no meaning for them.  The TC should
have removed AbandonRequest from the DSMLv2 schema."

The only bindings detailed in the DSMLv2 specification are
request-response, but it was intended that other bindings for the DSMLv2
schema could be created with support for asynchronous flows.
AbandonRequest has no meaning for the currently defined bindings, which
are
request-response, but might be useful for other bindings.

Regards,

John

John McGarvey
IBM directory architect
919-877-4892 or t/l 254-4892