[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090
I'm fine with removing the optimization language from lines 326-237. I've never been a fan of that language as I've never agreed this was just an "optimization". Marc Goodner Technical Diplomat Microsoft Corporation Tel: (425) 703-1903 Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ -----Original Message----- From: Anish Karmarkar [mailto:Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com] Sent: Thursday, February 23, 2006 11:49 AM To: Marc Goodner Cc: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [ws-rx] Clarification proposal for i090 Marc, I've not followed the full discussion on this issue, but was curious as to why is RMS/RMD restricted to a single EPR (replyTo). We have already said that RMS/RMD can span multiple WSDL endpoints, EPRs. This changes does not make it just an optimization anymore. -Anish -- Marc Goodner wrote: > I believe that Offer provides important functionality and should not be > cut to remove ambiguity with its usage. I would prefer to remove that > ambiguity through clarifications to the spec rather than cut the > feature. Below is my proposal for how to do so based on WD10. > > > > Clarification proposal for i090 > > > > Section 2.1 > > Line 240 after last sentence add, "When an offer is accepted all > messages for the accepted sequence MUST be sent to the <wsa:ReplyTo> of > the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message." > > > > Line 274 change "to RM Source." to "to the RM Source at the address > specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of this message." > > > > Line 343 change "to RM Source." to "to the RM Source at the address > specified by the <wsa:ReplyTo> of the <wsrm:CreateSequence> message." > > > > > > Marc Goodner > > Technical Diplomat > > Microsoft Corporation > > Tel: (425) 703-1903 > > Blog: http://spaces.msn.com/mrgoodner/ > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]