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

status of ROR

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Aug 2006 08:43:23 -0400
To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFE6428720.CDDF3440-ON852571BD.00436AC0-852571BD.0045E216@us.ibm.com>
Fulfilling my AI regarding the historical record of where we were with 
regards to the ROR, I find that we
had resolved all three issues (SC1, 2 and 3) and had slightly amended the 
proposed text, and that
what remained was to do a thorough review (which does not appear to have 
been done).

What isn't clear is whether there is a draft of the spec that reflects all 
of these changes. I suspect
that there is not, and that we will need to start with Noah's draft and 
apply the edits from the
resolutions to SC1, 2 and 3 and all of the other resolutions as outlined 
below. Once that has been
produced, I think that we all need to do a thorough review and report any 
other necessary tweaks to
make consistent.

The following is the relevant bits collected from the minutes as well as 
from emails related to 
closing SC1, 2 and 3 from the end of April and beginning of May.

Minutes of April 26 telcon seem to reflect that we had resolved SC1, 2, 
and 3 with proposed
amendment from me (expressed in the minutes) and that Mike was to draft 
text for the
modified text for the spec (not done). From the minutes:
 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Apr/att-0014/2006-04-26-minutes.html

[NEW] ACTION: Mike to Draft text for "before dashes" based on Chris's 
friendly amendment. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action02]
        (DONE) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006May/0000.html
[NEW] ACTION: Mike to Show the conclusions of SC3 to the mailing list. 
[recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action03]
        (DONE) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006May/0001.html
[NEW] ACTION: Noah to Draft proposed text after Table 17. [recorded in 
http://www.w3.org/2006/04/26-xmlprotocol-minutes.html#action01] 
        (DONE) 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006May/0003.html

>From the minutes of May 3, 2006:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006May/0003.html

> 5. SOAP 1.2 PER 
> 
> Proposal for ROR
>   Reworked proposal:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Jan/0050.html
>   HTML Part2 proposal:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/2/06/LC/soap12-part2OptRespMEP.html
> 
> Issues:
> 
>   SC1: 202 semantics. Table 17 for status code 202 row.
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0052.html
>   - I believe this is now moot, see (NM/MB exchange):
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0008.html
>   - Yet now continuing 202 and RX (2 separate requests) thread (DH):
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0009.html
>   - New proposed text from last week around Table 17. Mike will post 
>   agreed material, Noah will post new clarifying text after Table 17.
>   PENDING

Noah: Based on last week's discussion, we agreed that an HTTP 202
response could indicate an optional SOAP envelope will follow.  Found
that there is text around the table that relies on the fact that there
is no response envelope.  Proposed text:

  "The request has been accepted, but the server makes no commitment
  as to whether processing of the request has been completed.  If a
  response SOAP envelope is provided, than it may represent a partial
  response or a status update on progress of requst processing; if no
  response envelope is provided, then any further application
  processing is beyond the scope of this use of the 6.2 SOAP Request-
  Response Message Exchange Pattern***."

Mike: We already accepted text from Chris for this part of the table.

Noah: Use Chris' text, unless the above is better.
Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from
"receiving" to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be from
both "sending+receiving" and "receiving", if no envelope is received.

DavidH: Comfortable with Noah's proposed text.

Noah: Table 17 is in a section entitled "Requesting".  But this
transition is to "success", so also needed to draft text for 7.5.1.5
"Success and Fail".

Mike: Does this add conformance criteria?

Noah: No, it's just clarification.

DavidH: This won't change existing "200" implementations, because they
do this anyway.

Noah: New proposed text:
If the "success" state has been reached, either as a result of ... or ...
[See IRC log at http://www.w3.org/2006/05/03-xmlprotocol-irc
Access to log is forbidden at the time minutes are being submitted.]

Noah: Bug in 7.5.1.4:
Indicate status code 200 ... response includes soap envelope....
Need to remove this.
Look for everywhere the spec implies that 202 has no envelope.

ACTION: Yves to perform critical review of changes SC1, SC2, SC3 to
ensure the result is complete.

>   SC2: Semantics of response message. 6.2.2
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0051.html
>   - reworked in last telecon. New text is at:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Apr/0023.html
>   If no more pushback, then this is the final text
>   DONE
> 
>   SC3: OutboundMessage abstraction
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2006Mar/0050.html
>   - discussed at some length last week, search for SC3
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006Apr/att-0004
>    /2006-04-05-minutes.html
>   - Chris has a action here
>   DONE - final text from Chris. Mike will repost to list.

Noah in his response to the posted draft minutes wrote:
 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-protocol-wg/2006May/0004.html

As minuted:

> Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from
> "receiving" to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be from
> both "sending+receiving" and "receiving", if no envelope is received.

I think that should be:

Next, text states that there will be immediate transition from "receiving" 

to "success" as soon as 202 is received.  Should be >to< either 
"sending+receiving" and "receiving", and then immediately to "success" if 
no envelope is received.

Do I have that right?


Christopher Ferris
STSM, Software Group Standards Strategy
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
blog: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/blogs/dw_blog.jspa?blog=440
phone: +1 508 377 9295
Received on Tuesday, 1 August 2006 12:43:39 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:23 GMT