W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

oops! Re: Resolving the ednote in part 1 section 5.1

From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2002 09:29:29 -0500
Message-ID: <3C6D1B49.8020005@sun.com>
To: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
CC: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com, henrikn@microsoft.com, xml-dist-app@w3.org
Oops! I meant "Noah, thanks..." I was reading the "To:" line
and not the "From:". Need more coffee:)

Thanks Noah, (and you too Henrik for taking the AI to merge
the changes)

Cheers,

Chris

Christopher Ferris wrote:

> Henrik,
> 
> Thanks for the review. I think your suggested edit does indeed
> make it a bit clearer:) Thanks again.
> 
> Chris
> 
> noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> 
>> This looks fine to me, thanks! .  A couple of comments/suggestions:
>>
>> * Editorial:  I think  "It is recommended that end-to-end features 
>> should be expressed as SOAP header blocks so that they may avail 
>> themselves of the SOAP processing rules" might be replaced by  "It is 
>> recommended that, where practical, end-to-end features be expressed as 
>> SOAP header blocks, so that SOAP's processing rules can be employed."  
>> Not perfect, but a bit closer I think.  The construction: "It is 
>> recommended that end-to-end features should be expressed...so that 
>> they"  seemed a bit awkward to me.
>>
>> * Did we make a final TBTF decision to leave the introduction of the 
>> term "Feature" within chapter 5?  I know we didn't make a firm 
>> resolution to move it out, and I think we all agreed not to 
>> significantly delay progress to last call.  Still, it's not clear that 
>> moving it would be hard.  We've agreed that in the formulation below 
>> "feature" becomes a term that has significance well beyond the binding 
>> framework, suggesting that having it introduced in the middle of a 
>> section on binding frameworks is sub-optimal.
>>
>> Thanks.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Noah Mendelsohn                              Voice: 1-617-693-4036
>> IBM Corporation                                Fax: 1-617-693-8676
>> One Rogers Street
>> Cambridge, MA 02142
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Henrik Frystyk Nielsen" <henrikn@microsoft.com>
>> Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
>> 02/13/2002 02:00 PM
>>
>>  
>>         To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
>>         cc:         Subject:        Resolving the ednote in part 1 
>> section 5.1
>>
>>
>>
>> The following note looks more complicated than it is. The reason is that
>> it tries to convey the discussion in the TBTF that led up to this mail.
>> If you don't care about the discussion then you can jump directly to the
>> PROPOSAL at the end.
>>
>> DISCUSSION
>> ----------
>>
>> The ednote placed in section 5.1 of part 1 [0] has been the subject of
>> ongoing debate in the TBTF for a long time. It states that:
>>
>> "Some discussion continues on how best to represent the balance of
>> responsibility between binding specifications in particular, vs. other
>> software at the SOAP node, when dealing with features that are
>> represented entirely within the SOAP envelope. The paragraph above may
>> need some additional work to clarify"
>>
>> And is in response to the paragraph just above which says:
>>
>> "The combination of the SOAP extensibility model and the SOAP binding
>> framework provides some flexibility in the way that particular features
>> can be expressed: they 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."
>>
>> On Feb 8, Chris Ferris posted a proposal [2] for resolving issue 178 [1]
>> which is highly related. It proposes to add a note to the end of section
>> 5.1 saying:
>>
>> "Note: Certain features may require end-to-end as opposed to
>> hop-to-hop processing semantics. While the binding framework
>> provides for the possibility that such features may be expressed
>> outside the SOAP envelope, it does not define a specific
>> architecture for the processing or error handling of these externally
>> expressed features by a SOAP intermediary. A binding specification
>> that expresses such features external to the SOAP envelope should
>> define its own processing rules to which a SOAP node
>> is expected to conform (for example, describing what information
>> must be passed along with the SOAP message as it leaves
>> the intermediary). It is recommended that end-to-end
>> features should be expressed as SOAP header blocks so that
>> they may avail themselves of the SOAP processing rules [ref]."
>>
>> During the discussion in the TBTF, it was argued that the existing
>> paragraph (for which the ednote is targeted) and Chris's note describe
>> very similar aspects but from slightly different viewpoints. The
>> existing note describes it from the point of view of who makes
>> decisions, whereas Chris's note describes it from the possible
>> difference in scope of features expressed in the binding vs. features
>> expressed in the SOAP envelope. Furthermore, it was argued that while
>> the first part of the original note was useful, it doesn't seem to be
>> within our scope to indicate who makes what decisions, and so we felt it
>> was appropriate to delete the last sentence of the original note.
>>
>> PROPOSAL
>> --------
>>
>> The TBTF therefore suggests that the way we discharge the ednote is by
>> deleting the last sentence of the original paragraph in part 1, section
>> 5.1 and add Chris's note. The result is:
>>
>> "The combination of the SOAP extensibility model and the SOAP binding
>> framework provides some flexibility in the way that particular features
>> can be expressed: they 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.
>>
>> Note: Certain features may require end-to-end as opposed to hop-to-hop
>> processing semantics. While the binding framework provides for the
>> possibility that such features may be expressed outside the SOAP
>> envelope, it does not define a specific architecture for the processing
>> or error handling of these externally expressed features by a SOAP
>> intermediary. A binding specification that expresses such features
>> external to the SOAP envelope should define its own processing rules to
>> which a SOAP node is expected to conform (for example, describing what
>> information must be passed along with the SOAP message as it leaves the
>> intermediary). It is recommended that end-to-end features should be
>> expressed as SOAP header blocks so that they may avail themselves of the
>> SOAP processing rules [ref]."
>>
>> Henrik Frystyk Nielsen
>> mailto:henrikn@microsoft.com
>>
>> [0] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/10/11/soap12-part1.html#NA6A
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/xmlp-issues#x178
>> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2002Feb/0168.html
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
Received on Friday, 15 February 2002 10:41:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT