W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > August 2003

Re: Initial formulation of intermediary semantics for MTOM

From: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:35:30 -0700
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
To: noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com
Message-Id: <3DA213D4-DA8A-11D7-9272-00039396E15A@bea.com>

This looks good to me.

On Friday, August 29, 2003, at 03:14  PM, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com 
wrote:

> <proposed newSection="2.4.4 Binding Optimizations at Intermediaries">
> As described in SOAP Part 1 Section 2.7 Relaying SOAP Messages, a SOAP
> intermediary may be called upon to to relay intact certain headers, or 
> to
> reinsert headers identical to those received and removed for 
> processing.
> Furthermore, many intermediaries will relay unmodified the contents of 
> the
> SOAP body.   In all these cases, portions of the relayed message have
> content identical to corresponding portions of the inbound message.
>
> The Abstract Transmission Optimization Feature does not require any
> particular correspondence between the optimization of the inbound 
> message
> and the outbound message, even when optimized portions of the inbound
> message are relayed intact, or reinserted in identical form in the 
> envelope
> Infoset.  Nonetheless, the implementations of the receiving binding 
> and the
> binding used to transmit the relayed message MAY cooperate to provide
> efficient relay.  For example, if the inbound and outbound binding use 
> the
> same representation for optimized binary, the implementations MAY 
> cooperate
> to pass the optimized form directly from the inbound to the outbound
> binding.  The choice of whether to implement such cooperation, and if 
> so
> the means used, is at the discretion of the binding specification(s) 
> and/or
> the implementation of the bindings.
>
> Note:  a consequence of these rules is that there are no invariant 
> rules
> for the degree to which optimizations are preserved as a message passes
> through intermediaries.  Certain outbound bindings may be incapable of 
> any
> optimization, and will therefore transmit unoptimized forms in all 
> cases.
> Other bindings may be capable of optimization, but may or may not 
> choose to
> or succeed in optimizing the same portions (if any) that were 
> optimized in
> the inbound message.  Other bindings, perhaps under the direction of 
> logic
> provided in SOAP modules or perhaps as consequence of conventions 
> embodied
> in the bindings, may optimize portions of the message that were not
> optimized inbound, or which were optimized using different techniques.
> </proposed>
Received on Friday, 29 August 2003 21:36:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:14 GMT