[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issues Verification: 2.25, 2.36 and 2.53
I found the agreed approach for 2.36 and 2.53 being incorporated by the latest (j) version of the BaseN specification. Regarding 2.25, I have the following comment: This issue is about the normative dependency on WSRP and WSRL. One of the action items in this regard was to make it optional for the NotificationProducer to be a WS-Resource. The related text from the latest (j) version of BaseN reads as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- In addition to the message exchanges described in this specification, a NotificationProducer MAY also support the required message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties specification and MAY support the optional message exchanges defined in the WS-ResourceProperties specification. If it does so, tthe Resource Properties document defined by the NotificationProducer MUST include a reference to the following resource property elements: .... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---------------------- My interpretation of the above text is that - If a NotificationProducer supports WSRP message exchanges, then it must support the resource properties defined by the BaseN specification. I don't think that was our intent. I don't think it is reasonable to prohibit a NotificationProducer from being a WS-Resource and supporting entirely different set of resource properties than the ones identified by BaseN. I think our intent was to say that, in addition to the bespoke methods defined by BaseN, a NotificationProducer may optionally support -- access to a well defined set of resource properties via the WSRP protocol. Thanks, Sanjay
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]