Abbie Barbir wrote:
u have to deal with this option anyway.
Once u define generic OCP you will end having OCP over XXX over yyy over zzz
etc...
No, not if we only define *one* "OCP over XXX", i.e. only one
transport protocol binding.
Sure, it *might* turn out that there's be a need to have multiple
transport bindings, in which case this option should be discussed. But
I've not yet seen a convincing, *specific and practial relevant* case
that would required multiple such bindings.
We can probably come back to this question once we've decided on a
(first) OCP transport binding, and then we can really answer whether
this is sufficient. I just want to caution that we should *not* assume
to have multliple OCP transport bindings per default. I'd rather
suggest we try to have a single such binding, and only if it turns out
to be absolutely necessary, we might consider others.
-Markus