W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-soap-jms@w3.org > July 2009

NEW ISSUE: Assertion Protocol-2013 is missing RFC 2119 language

From: Eric Johnson <eric@tibco.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 17:41:56 -0700
Message-ID: <4A6A54D4.9020206@tibco.com>
To: SOAP-JMS <public-soap-jms@w3.org>
Title: protocol 2013 is missing RFC 2119 language

Description:
------------
We have this paragraph: "if the charset parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches the encoding value from the supplied XML. If there is a mismatch then a fault MUST be generated.† [Definition: Use fault subcode contentTypeMismatch in the event that the values do not match.†]

Protocol-2012 captures the first sentence, and Protocol-2013 covers the [Definition:].  Notice that the definition doesn't have any RFC 2119 language.

Justification:
--------------
It is impossible to test Protocol-2013 without also testing 2012.  Further, Protocol-2013 does not contain any RFC 2119 language.  Yet it is clearly subsidiary to Protocol-2012, and the absence of this language leaves it unclear as to what MUST be done.  Combining the two statements will clarify the possible confusion.

Proposal:
---------

Change the paragraph that reads:
"if the charset parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches the encoding value from the supplied XML. If there is a mismatch then a fault MUST be generated.† [Definition: Use fault subcode contentTypeMismatch in the event that the values do not match.†]

to this:

"If the charset parameter is specified it is checked to ensure that it matches the encoding value from the supplied XML. A fault MUST be generated with [Definition: subcode *contentTypeMismatch* if the encoding values do not match.]†"

-Eric Johnson
Received on Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:41:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 18:16:20 GMT