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

TBTF: Transport Binding Feedback list of feedback received.

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 16:58:46 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F19289A@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
TBTFer's,

I said that I would catalogue feedback we have received (more or less) in
response to David's request for reviews [1].I've listed this below, [2-9],
along with a sentence giving intended to summarise the comment/issue raised.

Reviewer's,

If you have posted feedback/commentary on the revised transport binding
material that I have missed or if you feel my oneliners misrepresent your
comments/concern please let me (and the TBTF) know.

Best regards

Stuart
--
David Falliside's request for reviews.
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0272.html


Doug Davies 
	- Definition of features has broader scope than binding framework
	- Onus to decide how best to express a feature lies with binding
spec, not the communicating node.
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0036.html

Doug Davies
	- asks for clarifiaction on a reference.
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0037.html

Glyn Normington
	- Concern about the small repetoire of features.
	- Detail comment on SRR MEP FSMs and diagram (consistency)
	- HTTP versions and assumptions about protocol interop (presumably
HTTP 1.0/1.1 interop and SOAP).
[4] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0048.html

Eamon O'Tuathail
	- Comment that intro material from earlier versions appears to have
been lost.
	- Detailed comment on SRR MEP FSM, temporal overlap of request and
response.
[5] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0038.html


Glen Daniels
	- Don't repeat the state diagrams (editorial)
	- Suggest illustrative examples of what goes on the wire for HTTP?
	- Editorial comments on 'currentMessage', infoset and attachments.
	- framing should be clear that this is a work in progress
[6] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0031.html

Kumeda-san
	- Positioning of status code listings
	- HTTP Status code 202 useful and required.
	- 204 response require no message body (per RFC 2616)... current
text implies empty envelope.
	- Request more guidance on the use of 4xx and 5xx series HTTP status
codes.
[7] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0121.html

Raj Nair [recorded as Issue 178]
	- Requirements on bindings imposed by end-to-end features.
[8] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Dec/0104.html
[9] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Nov/0248.html
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 12:00:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:05 GMT