RE: [ws-rx] PR18 - A proposal

["Gilbert Pilz" <gpilz@bea.com>]

I think the resolution of this issue and that of PR021 should be combined. In general I like this proposal, but I still have a problem with the language about reference parameters; I don't know what it means to "consider" a reference parameter.

 

- gp

---

From: Doug Davis [mailto:dug@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 7:05 AM
To: ws-rx@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [ws-rx] PR18 - A proposal

I think PR18 is saying that the text in 3.2 is a bit too vague w.r.t. which RM header may be piggy-backed and into which messages they may be added.  To that end, I propose we do a bit of wordsmithing.  Currently section 3.2 says:
3.2 Considerations on the Use of "Piggy-Backing"
Some RM header blocks may be added to messages that happen to be targeted to the same Endpoint to
which those headers are to be sent (a concept often referred to as "piggy-backing"), thus saving the
overhead of an additional message exchange. Reference parameters MUST be considered when
determining whether two EPRs are targeted to the same Endpoint.

I propose to make the following edits:

3.2 Considerations on the Use of "Piggy-Backing"
Some RM header blocks may be added to messages that happen to be are targeted to the same Endpoint to
which those headers are to be sent (a concept often referred to as "piggy-backing"), thus saving the
overhead of an additional message exchange. Reference parameters MUST be considered when
determining whether two EPRs are targeted to the same Endpoint.  See the sections that define each
RM header block to know which ones may be considered for piggy-backing.

thanks,
-Doug

smime.p7s