Re: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution (apparently)

Do you have a use case for b and e.
If so, it might be interesting to let the WG consider defining these 
mappings.
    Youenn

Jonathan Marsh wrote:
> I agree the minutes are a bit confusing.  Just as background, the full set
> of options that are worth considering (document status aside) are:
>
>   a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
>   b. robust-in-only -> SOAP response
>   c. robust-in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)
>   d. in-only -> SOAP request-optional-response (SOAP 1.2 SE)
>   e. in-only -> SOAP response
>   f. in-only -> SOAP one-way (WD)
>
> I assume the minutes should record that we approved a and d.  I don't think
> c makes any sense, or that f is practically possible.  But b and e also seem
> reasonable.
>
> Jonathan Marsh - http://www.wso2.com - http://auburnmarshes.spaces.live.com
>  
>
>   
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
>> Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Moreau
>> Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 8:16 AM
>> To: WSD Public
>> Subject: CR114: Discrepancy between initial proposal and resolution
>> (apparently)
>>
>>
>> I'd like to reopen CR144.
>>
>> Youenn's initial request was to add the following mappings:
>> a. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-optional response (SOAP 1.2 Second
>> Edition)
>> b. in-only -> SOAP 1-way (Working Draft)
>>
>> It seems the WG decided instead:
>> c. robust-in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
>> d. in-only -> SOAP request-response (SOAP 1.2 Initial Edition)
>>
>> This is quite a substantial difference.
>>
>> a+b seems to make more sense in the long run, but cannot be implemented
>> now (WD + SE).
>>
>> c+d seems like an interim, moderately attractive solution.
>>
>> (Am I missing something obvious?)
>>
>> So my question is: do we really want to implement c+d now or should we
>> proceed with no-action instead?
>>
>> JJ.
>>     
>
>
>