RE: FW: Proposal: A Registry Browser GUI tool

[David RR Webber <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Message text written by Scott Hinkelman/Austin/IBM
> 
Well, if you consider a Registry as just another Party (and some people
do),
then its the bootstrap issue on how to do that! *Someplace* there needs to
be
a default implied agreement to at least specify the technology binding
(say http) as Chris says.
<
<<<<<<<<<<<<

Scott,

regardless of the 'actor' role - ebXML should be defining a set of 
default behaviours at the low level for Registry.   For instance - access -

if you do not have access to a Registry what minimal information should
a registry return regardless?

M$ went thru this with NT - when an NT server is pinged it responds - and
tools like Big Red Box explioted that to get at info'.

So - I would like to see us layout all this foundation classes as it were
for registry.  We are not quite there yet - certainly the other side of 
Tokyo before we can get after those items....

Thanks, DW.