W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > March 2004

Re: Issue 455 closed: Representation header and SOAP processing model

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek.kopecky@systinet.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 16:52:43 +0100
To: Noah Mendelsohn <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, XMLP Dist App <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1080057163.1967.81.camel@localhost>


I'm not saying that if Representation mandates some rules, it makes the
nodes that adhere to the rules active intermediaries. But if our rules
say the header may be reinserted but applications should not depend on
that (all in the absence of any more concrete information), I don't see
the point.

I would say: the Representation header specifies nothing about
reinsertion, defaulting to SOAP Processing Model's removal in the
absence of other information. One way of getting such info is from the
role, if the "sticky" role is used. Another is an additional module. Yet
another is the configuration of an active intermediary.

Basically, forwarding intermediaries get the "additional info" from the
incoming message, active intermediaries from their context, too. We
cannot force any open decision processes on forwarding intermediaries,

Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Systinet Corporation

On Tue, 2004-03-23 at 16:38, noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com wrote:
> "A SOAP header block is said to be reinserted if the
> processing of that header block determines that the
> header block is to be reinserted in the forwarded
> message.
> This clearly says that the processing rules for a header block can 
> determine whether to reinsert, even in the case of a forwarding 
> intermediary (I think it's clearly implied that we're talking about 
> forwarding intermediaries here.)  We are writing the specification for the 
> processing of this header, so we have permission and indeed SHOULD in my 
> opinion indicate the rules for reinsertion as a result of such processing. 
>  My note was intended to offer two options for such a Representation 
> Header processing  specification.  I really don't think that suppying such 
> rules makes the node an active intermediary;  on the contrary, I think 
> we're doing what the SOAP Rec tells you to do when specifying the 
> processing of a header at a forwarding intermediary.  Make sense?
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 10:53:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 22:01:25 UTC