Re: [ws-rx] i010 - a proposal

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

I have a minor quibble about the 1st change on line 80 (others look good 
to me).

Why do we need this change? The source and destination are not 
restricted to any particular endpoints. The protocol indeed is between 
two parties. Isn't it?

-Anish
--

Doug Davis wrote:
> 
> Per my AI for issue 10 here's what I came up with.
> As much as I tried I really couldn't find a nice way to define RM Source 
> and RM Destination to make it clear that they were not limited to just 
> one endpoint or port. The closest I came was to add some text to the 
> definitLink <Notes:///852567D6004B67F5>ion of each that talked about how 
> they were not limited to one endpoint blah blah blah...    But I thought 
> that wouldn't be any better than my original proposal because it would 
> probably make people stop and think too much about what we were trying 
> to say.  So, what I came up with was this:
> - remove the "endpoint" in places where we said "RM Source endpoint" and 
> "RM Destination endpoint" - as Jacques suggested
> - tweak the "exactly two parties" sentence we talked about during the f2f
> - remove the tying of the RM Source/Destination to the WS-Addr headers 
> in the CreateSequence section
> - add just *1* sentence expanding the scope of the RM Source and RM 
> destination concept in the RM Model section.  I tried to keep this 
> sentence short so to not over-complicate things but still allow the 
> freedom I was looking for.
> 
> I've attached a pdf file of the spec with the change bars on.  You 
> should find 9 changes.  For easy finding they're on line #s: 80, 146, 
> 213, 305, 313, 315, 435, 436, 475,
> 
> thanks
> -Doug
> 
>