Hi Again:
I wouldn't say slide 7 captures my comment. My endpoint rendering doesn't imply a third entity, just that the responder entity is rendered with multiple endpoints to allow a more general scenario such as renegotiation that could combine multiple agreements (something you couldn't do if the preceding agreement is always implied like the "this" pointer in a simple object system):
1. agreement initiator sends offer to agreement factory
2. agreement factory sends accept (sync or async reply)
... repeat 1-2 for multiple agreements...
3. renegotiation initiator sends offer to agreement factory
4. agreement factory sends accept (sync or async reply)
These are somethngs I can guess and feel provide an elegant solution, but I feel that the implicit messages needed here between the Agreement Responder and the Agreement Factory would needed to be spelt out or (My guess) would always, fail.. #Karl please tell me that I'm wrong... So for the moment, I personally feel that a more simple protocol either using PendingXXX would be better.. #Your thoughts everyone :-) Best Regards Toshi @ safely moved from freezing East Coast US to a warmer Silicon Valley ----- Toshiyuki Nakata 中田 登志之 Executive Chief Engineer, Central Research Lab. NEC 1753, Shimonumabe, Nakahara-Ku, Kawasaki,Kanagawa 211-8666,Japan Tel +81-44-431-7653 (NEC Internal 22-60035) Fax +81-44-431-7609 (NEC Internal 22-60509)