RE: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription

[Rich Thompson <richt2@us.ibm.com>]

Could you provide a definition for a
"pure" extension of the protocol?

I would particularly like to see how
it applies to:
 - Defining a new value and related
semantics which extend the mode portion of the protocol
 - Defining a new type and related
semantics which extend the eventing portion of the protocol
 - Defining a new type and related
semantics which extend the ClientData portion of the protocol

I see all three of these as places where
we built extensibility into the protocol, presumably because we expected
implementations to leverage such extensibility.

Rich

"Andre Kramer" <andre.kramer@eu.citrix.com>

08/22/05 12:55 PM

To	Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS, "wsrp" <wsrp@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc
Subject	RE: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription

I’m opposed to any description
of a pure extension in the protocol - even transfers of description (which
would not be very useful, unless backed up by some real description and
agreement).
 
Regards,
Andre

---

From: Rich Thompson [mailto:richt2@us.ibm.com]
Sent: 22 August 2005 17:44
To: wsrp
Subject: RE: [wsrp] ExtensionDescription
 

Andre Kramer wrote: 
> My fundamental concerns are totally with regards to the definition
of extensions that 
> are outside the scope of WSRP. These, as I understand it, are to be
carried in <extensions> 
> elements containing an “any” value and for reason of future evolution
and extensibility should 
> be left open and not described in our protocol IMHO. 

As far as I know, no one has proposed describing extensions within the
protocol. What has 
been proposed is providing an in-band means for transferring a description
of an extension. 

Rich ---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates
this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php