On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Martin Stecher wrote:
A possible solution would be to have a single HTTP profile
(that defines what HTTP message parts _can_ be exchanged) and
separately negotiate what services need what parts. Often a
service ID would define the list of parts and no extra negotiation
would be required. Would that work better from your point of view?
That could work. Can you make a suggestion how this separate
negotiation will look like?
It could be the same as service "negotiation" now. For services that
imply a particular set of parts, the service ID is sufficient. For
other services, the part names will be listed as service parameters,
just like they are listed as profile parameters now.
OCP does not have a mechanism to negotiate services, but one can
reject a Transaction Start (TS) or Create Service Group (SGC) message
by closing the transaction or connection.
Alex.