[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not defined
Aha of course. I wasn't trying to restrict this to the WSA anon URI, simply to say "this is the same backchannel that would be described if you used the WSA anon URI". I guess my wording isn't that clear, tho I do think it can be read that way. Is this better? Backchannel: The term Backchannel as used in this specification means a transport-protocol specific facility that allows transmission of a protocol response message. This MAY be indicated by the use of the WS-Addressing Anonymous URI, or another anonymous URI. Paul Doug Davis wrote: > > Don't think you want to be that specific to say which URI as there > could be lots of URIs that mean "the back-channel" > > thanks > -Doug > __________________________________________________ > STSM | Web Services Architect | IBM Software Group > (919) 254-6905 | IBM T/L 444-6906 | dug@us.ibm.com > > > > *Paul Fremantle <paul@wso2.com>* > > 12/11/2006 02:00 PM > > > To > Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS > cc > "[WS-RX]" <ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org> > Subject > Re: [ws-rx] PR33 - Re: [ws-rx] NEW Issue back-channel not defined > > > > > > > > > > Chris > > I'm still not sure why *we* are defining backchannel. It seems to me > that belongs in WS-A. However, if we were to, I would prefer to refer to > in terms of WS-A: > > Backchannel: The term Backchannel as used in this specification means a > transport protocol specific facility that allows transmission of a > protocol response message on the transport-specific connection indicated > by the use of the WS-Addressing anonymous URI. > > Paul > > > Christopher B Ferris wrote: > > > > All, > > > > Bob and I have noodled on a definition of backchannel that we believe > > addresses the concerns expressed in PR33 > > > > Proposed resolution: > > > > Add the following definiton to the glossary section as follows: > > > > Backchannel: The term Backchannel as used in this specification means > > a transport protocol specific facility that allows transmission of a > > protocol response message on a given connection in the direction > > towards the entity that initiated that connection. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Christopher Ferris > > STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy > > email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com > > blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/page/chrisferris > > phone: +1 508 377 9295 > > > > "Bob Freund-Hitachi" <bob.freund@hitachisoftware.com> wrote on > > 11/07/2006 01:00:26 PM: > > > > > The WS-RM spec uses the term “back-channel” several times without > > > defining it outside of the use “protocol specific back-channel” > > > > > > A cursory scan of rfc 2616 HTTP 1.1 does not define the term. > > > It is also not defined in SOAP 1.2 Parts 0-3 > > > Where is the term defined? > > > That definition should be referenced or a definition provided > > > > > > Thanks > > > -bob > > -- > Paul Fremantle > VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 > OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair > > http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle > paul@wso2.com > (646) 290 8050 > > "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com > > > -- Paul Fremantle VP/Technology and Partnerships, WSO2 OASIS WS-RX TC Co-chair http://bloglines.com/blog/paulfremantle paul@wso2.com (646) 290 8050 "Oxygenating the Web Service Platform", www.wso2.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]