RE: Problem with resolution of Issue 221

• From: Henrik Frystyk Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>
• Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 17:13:24 -0700
• To: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
• Cc: <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <79107D208BA38C45A4E45F62673A434D08A34D28@red-msg-07.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

I agree with this but would also go further in stating that this seems
to apply to any SOAP sender, regardless of whether it is the initial
sender or an intermediary sender: for performance reasons, it would be
really bad for a sender to first go through the message and check for
PIs before sending.

If we want to say anything for PIs then I think it should be SHOULD.
FWIW, I would be happy not to say anything.

Henrik

>My strong feeling is that intermediaries should not be 
>required to do PI 
>checking in situations where performance makes such detection 
>a problem. I 
>agree with Gudge that requiring it for one purpose but not 
>another misses 
>the point.  So, if the resolution to 221 seems inconsistent 
>when viewed 
>from that perspective, then I think we need to get the WG to 
>clarify.  My 
>recollection was that our intention was that detection and 
>rejection in a 
>receiver was to be on a best effort basis, but I could be 
>wrong.  Thanks.

Received on Friday, 23 August 2002 20:14:55 UTC