[graap-wg] proposal: stateful async agreement

[Toshiyuki Nakata]

Sorry to ask many snippets of questions rather than chunk them to gether.

If an initiator issed five different createPendingAgreement operations,
May I understand that it is the initiator's responsibility to create
5 different initiatorAcceptance EPR so that the response might be
discriminated properly?

>  F. A new createPendingAgreement operation is introduced where an
>     input offer initiates an asynchronous acceptance decision; the
>     response is either a fault (fatal errors/rejection) or an EPR to
>     an Agreement that MAY be in Pending, Observed, or Rejected state.
>
>     1. The responder MUST update its state RP to either Observed or
>        Rejected following its decision.
>
>     2. The initiator MAY use alternate mechanisms to determine if and
>        when the Agreement transfers to Observed, including but not
>        limited to the querying of a state RP.  Until the initiator
>        determines the state as changed to Observed or Rejected, it
>        SHOULD NOT assume the outcome.
>
>     3. An optional initiatorAcceptance EPR MAY appear in the input
>        message, in which case the responder MUST invoke
>        acceptAgreement or rejectAgreement to communicate its
>        decision, in addition to updating its state RP.
>
>     4. An optional initiatorAgreement EPR MAY appear as in
>        createAgreement.  This EPR MAY be the same as the
>        initiatorAcceptance EPR, if the service implements both
>        interfaces.
>
>     5. Should the output allow an optional state indicator?  I think
>        it is simpler to say "no" and uniformly assume an interaction
>        after creation.
>  
>

-- 
We have moved to a new Office!!
Toshiyuki Nakata ?????
Internet System Laboratories NEC 
t-nakata at cw.jp.nec.com
1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, 
Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan 
Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60210)
Fax +81-44-431-7681 (NEC Internal 22-60219)