Section 3.1 Protocol Schemes I think "AMQP WebSocket Binding [AMQPWS] endpoints MUST either be described with the standard ws (non-secure) or wss (secure, TLS) WebSocket schemes." would read more clearly as " AMQP WebSocket Binding [AMQPWS] endpoints MUST be described with the standard ws (non-secure) or wss ( secure, TLS ) WebSocket schemes." (i.e. remove 'either') Section 3.2.2 Message 'to' field Section 3.2.3 Message 'reply-to' and the Request Reply pattern In these sections we refer to notions of "receiver"s, "router"s and "server"s. These terms are introduced without definition. In section 3.2.2 in particular we have: Any receiver MUST ignore the network endpoint and not use it as a dispatch criterion, as access via different on-ramps to the same AMQP address is equivalent. A router MAY ignore the 'to' field and forward a message within its own network, or MAY connect to the 'to' field network address. How routers decide that is out of scope of this specification; they MAY use custom annotations, properties of the link or connection that received the message, or other mechanisms. which is specifying different behaviour of receivers and routers. I think we need another working draft to resolve this before we can progress to CSPRD. -- Rob -- ______________________________ ______________________________ _________________ Red Hat GmbH,
www.de.redhat.com , Registered seat: Grasbrunn, Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243, Managing Directors: ,Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric Shander