RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5

+1, I like it three.  Much more concise than what seems to be there now.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Williams, Stuart [mailto:skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 12:35 PM
> To: 'Henrik Frystyk Nielsen'; Mountain, Highland M; David Fallside
> (E-mail)
> Cc: Oisin Hurley; Hugo Haas; Glen Daniels; Chris.Ferris@sun.com;
> marc.hadley@sun.com; Mark Nottingham; Noah Mendelsohn; ylafon@w3.org;
> Mark A. Jones (E-mail); www-archive@w3.org; Williams, Stuart
> Subject: RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5
> 
> 
> Henrik,
> 
> The only place I can find the wording you refer to online is 
> in a message
> Glen sent to the WG just ahead of the September F2F [1].
> 
> I think that what happened was that this and [2] were merged 
> on someone's PC
> at the f2f, transferred to floppy and printed at the 
> reception desk. I don't
> think the merged version ever made it onto the Web. It's a 
> pity this text
> 'fell-off-the-web' I like it too.
> 
> Stuart
> 
> [1]
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2001Se
> p/0034.html
> [2] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/08/31/
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen [mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com]
> > Sent: 03 November 2001 16:53
> > To: Mountain, Highland M; David Fallside (E-mail)
> > Cc: Oisin Hurley; Hugo Haas; Glen Daniels; Chris.Ferris@sun.com;
> > marc.hadley@sun.com; Mark Nottingham; Noah Mendelsohn; 
> ylafon@w3.org;
> > Mark A. Jones (E-mail); www-archive@w3.org; Stuart' 
> 'Williams (E-mail)
> > Subject: RE: Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description for Nov 5
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I have some of the same concerns as Glen but taking a step 
> back, I am
> > somewhat confused as to how this text relates to the text that we
> > presented at the f2f (included as I can't find it online anywhere,
> > sorry):
> > 
> > "SOAP provides a simple messaging framework with a core set of
> > functionality. As part of communicating between SOAP nodes it may be
> > necessary to introduce a variety of abstract features generally
> > associated with the exchange of messages in a protocol environment.
> > Although SOAP poses no constraints on the potential scope of such
> > features, typical examples include "reliability", "security",
> > "correlation", and "routing".
> > 
> > In some cases, underlying protocols are equipped with native 
> > mechanisms
> > for providing certain features, in whole or in part (for example,
> > message queueing systems typically provide a degree of reliability).
> > 
> > The SOAP Transport Binding Framework provides some 
> flexibility in the
> > way that particular features can be expressed: Features can 
> > be expressed
> > entirely within the SOAP envelope (as blocks), outside the envelope
> > (typically in a manner that is specific to the underlying 
> > protocol), or
> > as a combination of such expressions. It is up to the communicating
> > nodes to decide how best to express particular features; 
> often when a
> > binding-level implementation for a particular feature is available,
> > utilizing it when appropriate will provide for optimized 
> processing."
> > 
> > I apologize if I have missed something but I thought we had 
> something
> > resembling consensus on this but now I can't find this text in the
> > current binding document anymore [1]?
> > 
> > Henrik
> > 
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/19/Binding_Framework.html
> > 
> > 	 -----Original Message-----
> > 	From: 	Mountain, Highland M
> > [mailto:highland.m.mountain@intel.com] 
> > 	Sent:	Friday, November 02, 2001 14:24
> > 	To:	David Fallside (E-mail)
> > 	Cc:	'Oisin Hurley'; 'Hugo Haas'; 'Glen Daniels';
> > 'Chris.Ferris@sun.com'; 'marc.hadley@sun.com'; 'Mark 
> > Nottingham'; 'Noah
> > Mendelsohn'; 'ylafon@w3.org'; 'Mark A. Jones (E-mail)';
> > 'www-archive@w3.org'; Stuart' 'Williams (E-mail); Henrik 
> > Frystyk Nielsen
> > 	Subject:	 Capturing Noah's Goal - Framework Description
> > for Nov 5
> > 	Importance:	High
> > 
> > 	David,
> > 
> > 	FWIW, we have this text for Monday's meeting :  
> > 
> > 	Any binding specification has a set of messaging requirements.
> > Some of these requirements could be satisfied by the underlying
> > protocol's native feature set.  Other requirements may need to be
> > provided outside of the underlying protocol. The requirements not
> > provided natively by the underlying protocol of choice will 
> need to be
> > expressed in the resulting binding specification.  These 
> requirements
> > will be expressed as features and associated properties.  SOAP nodes
> > will have to determine which resident modules satisfy the features
> > outside the scope of the underlying protocol, in order to 
> be compliant
> > with a given binding specification.  
> > 
> > 	The last statement is where we need to arrive at a common
> > understanding.  
> > 
> > 
> > 	Talk to you Monday.
> > 
> > 	Highland
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 12:39:19 UTC