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

Issue 392: revised proposal

From: Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2002 16:22:26 +0100
Message-ID: <3DBFF932.56CF3A01@crf.canon.fr>
To: "xml-dist-app@w3.org" <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
CC: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>, Mark Jones <jones@research.att.com>, Herve Ruellan <ruellan@crf.canon.fr>, David Fallside <fallside@us.ibm.com>

I took an action to provide a revised resolution for issue 392. I
hope this captures all the points which were raised during this
morning's discussion. Apologies for the wording, it is a litle
rough.

Jean-Jacques.

<proposal>
Intermediary Considerations
===========================
A SOAP message can travel through zero or more SOAP
intermediaries. This sections describes the requirements posed on
SOAP intermediaries supporting this specification.

A SOAP intermediary MUST be able to access any secondary part.

A forwarding SOAP intermediary MUST in general forward every
secondary parts contained in the incoming SOAP message, except
when the specification for a SOAP header block calls for the part
to be removed or changed. An active SOAP intermediary MAY change
or remove any secondary part even in the absence of such a
mandate. It is strongly recommended that such changes be
described in a manner that allows such modifications to be
detected by affected SOAP nodes further along the message path.
[*Ednote: do we want this fine distinction? If not, we could just
delete the last two sentences.*]

A SOAP intermediary MAY insert new secondary parts.

The integrity of the URI scheme used to reference secondary parts
MUST be maintained accross SOAP intermediaries.
</proposal>
Received on Wednesday, 30 October 2002 10:22:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:11 GMT