W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2006

Re: ROR proposal issue #2 (aka SC2)

From: <noah_mendelsohn@us.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Mar 2006 19:11:19 -0500
To: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF6EFD6785.3D4516C7-ON85257143.0000B858-85257143.000109C3@lotus.com>

Thank you Mike.  I want to think more about Chris' proposed change, but I 
do think that Dave's goes beyond what the workgroup agreed when we 
suggests:

"The SOAP Request-Response MEP defines a pattern for the exchange of a 
message acting as a request optionally followed by a message acting as a 
response. The messages may or may not carry SOAP envelopes."

I think we've agreed that the request, including its envelope is 
mandatory.  The response is mandatory too, but the envelope in it is 
optional.  Similarly where he suggests:

"In the absence of failure in the underlying protocol, this MEP consists 
of one request message and one optional response message."

I think that also contradicts our decision that the response is mandatory.

As we move ahead, I would find it helpful if commentators would separate 
suggestions for how to draft wording that captures the technical agreement 
we've reached, from proposals to reopen the discussion of the technical 
direction.  Dave's proposal seems to me to include the latter.

Noah

--------------------------------------
Noah Mendelsohn 
IBM Corporation
One Rogers Street
Cambridge, MA 02142
1-617-693-4036
--------------------------------------








<michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Sent by: xml-dist-app-request@w3.org
03/31/2006 06:16 PM
 
        To:     <xml-dist-app@w3.org>
        cc:     (bcc: Noah Mendelsohn/Cambridge/IBM)
        Subject:        ROR proposal issue #2 (aka SC2)



I took an action to explode the substantive comments on the ROR 
proposal individually out to the ML. This is one of three.

Thx, Mike 

----------------------------------------------------------------
Issue: Do not make any claims as to what the response message 
indicates (whether or not the message was received). 

Target: 6.2.2

Commenters: Chris Ferris (CF), Dave Orchard (DO)

Proposed text: 
From: '***The SOAP Request-Response MEP defines a pattern for the 
exchange of a SOAP message acting as a request followed by a message 
acting as a response. The response message MAY contain a SOAP 
envelope, or else the response MUST be a binding-specific message 
indicating that the request has been received. In the absence of 
failure in the underlying protocol, this MEP consists of exactly 
two messages.'

To (1): '***The SOAP Request-Response MEP defines a pattern for the 
exchange of a SOAP message acting as a request followed by a message 
acting as a response. The response message is a binding-specific 
response that MAY contain a SOAP envelope. In the absence of failure 
in the underlying protocol, this MEP consists of exactly two messages.'
(CF)

To (2): '***The SOAP Request-Response MEP defines a pattern for the 
exchange of a message acting as a request optionally followed by a 
message acting as a response. The messages may or may not carry SOAP 
envelopes. In the absence of failure in the underlying protocol, this 
MEP consists of one request message and one optional response 
message:' (DO)


Refs: 
(1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0062.html
(2) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0092.html
Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 00:11:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 22:28:13 UTC