Re: ROR proposal issue #1 (aka SC1)

Looks good Michael, thanks.

On 3/31/06, michael.mahan@nokia.com <michael.mahan@nokia.com> wrote:
>
> 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: Think it's perfectly fine if a SOAP response is returned
> on a 202 response. What's most important to indicate, I believe,
> is that because of the semantics of 202, that any SOAP envelope
> would not represent the results of processing the inbound SOAP
> message.  It only indicates an intermediate result, like an ack.
>
> Target: Table 17 for status code 202 row
>
> Commenter: Mark Baker
>
> Proposed text:
> From: "The request has been accepted, but no response envelope
> is provided. Any further application processing is beyond the
> scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-Response Message
> Exchange Pattern***."
>
> To (1): "The request has been accepted, and any information that
> might be present in the response message, possibly including
> a SOAP envelope, does not represent the results of processing
> the request message. Any further application processing is
> beyond the scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-Response
> Message Exchange Pattern***."
>
> Disposition: We began debate on 3/29 telecon (2), decided to
> postpone decision due to the dependency on the 202/204 issue
>
> Refs:
> (1) http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0057.html
> , para 4
> (2)
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Mar/att-0026
> /2006-03-29-minutes.html
> search for 'SC1'
>
>


--
Mark Baker.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.       http://www.markbaker.ca

Received on Saturday, 1 April 2006 05:15:11 UTC