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

Re: SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios

From: John Ibbotson <john_ibbotson@uk.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2002 15:51:01 +0000
To: undisclosed-recipients:;
To: "Gaertner, Dietmar" <Dietmar.Gaertner@softwareag.com>
Cc: "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF684AE2D5.A5F549CE-ON80256B7D.00560C4B@portsmouth.uk.ibm.com>

Comments inline below. They will appear in the next draft once I get
another example contributed.

                      "Gaertner, Dietmar"                                                                                             
                      <Dietmar.Gaertner@soft        To:       John Ibbotson/UK/IBM@IBMGB                                              
                      wareag.com>                   cc:       "'jacek@systinet.com'" <jacek@systinet.com>, "'xml-dist-app@w3.org'"    
                      03/05/2002 04:44 PM           Subject:  SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios                                                
                      Please respond to                                                                                               
                      "Gaertner, Dietmar"                                                                                             

Hi John,

at the F2F in Mandelieu Jacek an I (replacing DavidF) took an action item
to review the Usage Scenarios. Following is my review summary; Jacek
will provide his in a later reply.

Regards, Dietmar.


- title "XML Protocol Usage Scenarios" --> "SOAP 1.2 Usage Scenarios" ?
  <jbi> changed </jbi>

- The described usage scenarios are very good and cover a lot of
  reasonable application scenarios.

- There are a few other usage scenarios which I could imagine would
  fit well into the list. My favorites are scenarios with intelligent
  intermediaries which are capable of doing transformations of the
  message content and/or do content based routing.
  <jbi>The Usage Scenario document only addresses the scenarios we
  during the requirements gathering process. I realise there are MANY more

- the numbering scheme for the senarios is not consistent (or else
  it is not clear what the scheme is):
  S1-S8, S10, S11, S19-S21, S23, S805, S807, S810, DS17, DS24.
  <jbi>Agree but it follows the convention in the requirements document for
  Scenarios and Draft Scenarios. It was decided to keep the numbers in
spite of
  them being out of sequence</jbi>

- many of the figures are indented too much or are too large,
  such that they get cut off when printed in portrait format
  <jbi>Changed the image sizes so that should be fixed in new version</jbi>

- section 2.3.2 text:
  "... the processing application would generate the *a* document..."

- section 2.5.2 text:
  "... A Status Handler *on* registered..." - remove
  "... and places it *in* the response..."  - add

- section 2.6.2 Example: encrypted SOAP message:
  old SOAP-ENV prefix and schema used
  mustUndestand="1" - change to "true"
  EDNOTE there. Still required?
  <jbi>Done and Ednote removed. Body is opaque in this example</jbi>

- root attribute: I guess that the F2F resolution of issue 78
  requires to add root attributes all over the place in the

- section 2.16.1 text:
  "SOAP module" term not defined in the spec
  "... >Cacheability..." - remove ">"

- section 2.21.2 text:
  "actor" --> role
  "QoS" and "QOS" - make consistent, e.g. always "QoS"
Received on Sunday, 17 March 2002 13:11:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:11:48 UTC